Engineers Spoke. We Listened. Here Is What We Filed.

When the Ontario government posted a proposed regulation under Bill 98 that would require municipal Chief Building Officials (CBOs) to certify engineering work on Metrolinx transit projects, OSPE did not file a submission first and ask questions later. We went to our members.

What came back was clear, detailed, and in some cases blunt. Engineers across disciplines and career stages told us the same thing: putting engineering certifications in the hands of non-engineers is not a shortcut. It is a risk.

Here is what happened, what members said, and what we told the government.

The Proposal

The Ministry of Transportation posted Proposal 26–MTO013 on the Regulatory Registry, which introduces a Building Science Compliance Report as part of Bill 98. Under the proposal, when Metrolinx files a construction or demolition notice, the municipality must produce a compliance report signed by the Chief Building Official certifying that the design complies with the Ontario Building Code.

The items on that form include structural sufficiency, mechanical systems, electrical systems, and fire protection. The form also requires the CBO to assess the applicability of the Professional Engineers Act (PEA).

Assessing the applicability of the PEA is a regulatory determination. It belongs to PEO and to the engineers of record, not to municipal building departments. And a CBO signing a form that says a structural design “complies” is not an administrative approval. It is a professional certification on engineering content, signed by someone who may not be an engineer.

In practice, this proposal would allow transit infrastructure to be approved without an engineer’s seal. That is not a process improvement. It is a gap in the accountability framework that the Professional Engineers Act exists to protect.

What We Asked Members

We put three questions to OSPE’s membership before filing. We asked whether they wanted OSPE to act. We asked how concerned they were about non-engineers certifying engineering work. And we asked whether they had personally experienced situations where non-engineers were asked to certify or assess engineering work.

The response was strong. An overwhelming majority of respondents wanted OSPE to file a formal submission. The level of concern was high across the board.

But it was the personal experiences that gave the submission its weight.

What Members Told Us

Members described situations from across their careers and disciplines. A few that stood out:

One member described a home renovation where a building inspector took a contractor’s word that an engineer had approved a structural fix, without verifying it. The project was closed. A second engineer, retained afterward, confirmed the structural violation was never resolved. No one was held accountable.

A former Chief Building Official wrote directly to say that while CBOs are well trained in their discipline, they can be subjected to political influence and duress, and that their decisions are not held to the same professional standards, legal discipline, and personal liability as engineers.

A fire protection engineer flagged that limiting fire protection certification to qualified engineers was one of the key outcomes of the Grenfell Tower inquiry in the United Kingdom, and that Ontario would be moving in the opposite direction from where the international community has landed on this specific question.

Others described pressure from project managers and owners to approve work quickly, administrative reviewers without engineering backgrounds overriding technical judgment, and a general pattern of non-engineers being inserted into engineering accountability chains in ways that made it harder, not easier, to trace responsibility when things went wrong.

One member put it plainly: “Go all in on this one OSPE. This is a no-go.”

What We Filed

OSPE submitted formal comments to the ERO ahead of the June 2 deadline. Our submission argued five things:

The proposed Building Science Compliance Report, as drafted, asks CBOs to certify engineering work they are not qualified or authorized to certify. Structural sufficiency and mechanical systems are engineering practice. The Professional Engineers Act exists precisely to ensure that certifications on engineering work are made by licensed engineers with accountability to their regulator.

The PEA applicability assessment cannot be delegated to municipalities. Whether a scope of work constitutes professional engineering practice is a legal and regulatory question for PEO, not a building department.

Also, professional engineers carry errors and omissions insurance tied to their licence. CBOs do not carry equivalent coverage for engineering certifications. The proposal does not address what happens to liability when a CBO certifies a design, and something fails.

CBO capacity and independence is not uniform across Ontario. A framework that depends on consistent, technically qualified, politically independent judgment from building officials in every municipality in the province is not a framework the current system can deliver.

The proposed form goes further than a permit approval. The certification language moves the CBO from an administrative reviewer to a certifying signatory on engineering content. Those are not the same thing, and the distinction matters when something goes wrong and someone needs to be held accountable.

We also recommended that fire protection certification be explicitly excluded from the CBO’s scope, that any PEA applicability assessment be assigned to PEO or the engineer of record, and that the certification language on the form be revised to accurately reflect what a CBO is authorized and qualified to certify.

Why This Matters Beyond This Proposal

Several members noted that this is not the first time a government has tried to create a pathway around the engineer’s seal in the name of efficiency. It will not be the last.

OSPE’s job is to make sure the engineering profession’s voice is in the room when those decisions are being made, and to give government the clearest possible picture of what is actually at stake when professional accountability gets streamlined away.

Public safety does not move faster because the approval did.

We will continue to monitor this file and report back to members as the government responds. If you have not yet shared your experience or perspective, the ERO comment period has closed, but your input will continue to inform OSPE’s advocacy on the right of practice.