OAA COUNCIL MEETINGS

Transcription

1 OAA COUNCIL MEETINGS RULES AND PROCEDURES Meetings of the Council of the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) are conducted in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order which is included in the Councillor Orientation Binder, unless stipulated otherwise with the by-laws or as otherwise approved by OAA Council see below. Rules and Procedures for Discussion/Debate/Motions within Council Meetings 1) The maximum time for a speech in debate on a motion is two minutes. 2) The Chair shall keep a speakers list of those wishing to speak to a motion; and a) the speakers list shall be built in the order that the Chair notes a member s intention to speak; and b) any member having not spoken to a motion shall be given preference on the speakers list over any member who has already spoken to the motion. 3) An original main motion may only be introduced at a meeting if it has been added under New Business to the agenda approved for that meeting. 4) An item For Information Only which no Council member indicates will be the subject of a question or an original main motion is considered to be dispensed upon approval of the agenda for that meeting. 5) The meeting will move to a period of informal discussion immediately after a new item has been presented and any questions on the item have been put and answered, but before an original main motion on the item is introduced; and a) a period of informal discussion is defined as the opportunity to discuss an item without there being a motion on the floor; and b) the Chair of the meeting when the item is introduced continues as the Chair during the period of informal discussion unless he or she chooses to relinquish the Chair; and c) in a period of informal discussion the regular rules of debate are suspended; and d) a period of informal discussion ceases when the Chair notes that no additional members wish to speak to the item or when an incidental motion to return to the regular rules of debate passes with a majority; and e) immediately upon leaving a period of informal discussion, the presenter of the item may move an original main motion on the item and the formal rules of debate resume; and f) if the presenter of the item moves no motion on the item then the item is considered dispensed unless an indication to introduce additional original main motions on the item is on the agenda, in which case each of these motions is presented in turn and debated as per the rules of formal debate.

2 ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF ARCHITECTS Council Meeting of November 5, 2009 at approx. 11:00 a.m. Meeting # 191 O P E N M E E T I N G A G E N D A 1.0 AGENDA APPROVAL 2.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.1 Draft minutes of the September 24, 2009 Open Council Meeting (see attached) 2.2 Draft minutes of the October 16, 2009 Special Meeting of Council (see attached) 3.0 BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 4.0 ITEMS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL 4.1 Honours and Awards Task Group: Recommendations for 2010/2011 OAA Awards Program (see attached) Vice President Fiett 4.2 Canadian Education Standard Final Draft (TBD) President 4.3 Continuing Education Committee (see attached) External Providers Assessment Fee Schedule Contiuing Education Committee 4.4 Standards of Practice Task Group (see attached) 4.5 Conference Committee 2010 Conference Theme/Title (see attached) Conference Committee 5.0 EXECUTVE COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Report from the President 5.1.a Activities for the months of September-December (see attached) 5.1.b National: International Relations Committee Update (see attached) 5.1.c Report on Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) Meeting of October 22, 2009, Winnipeg (see attached) 5.1.d Canadian Architectural Certification Board Annual Report (see attached) President 5.2 Report from the Senior Vice President and Treasurer SVP and Treasurer 5.3 Report from Vice President Strategic 5.3.a Committee on the Future of the Profession/Interns (oral) Vice President Popovic Councillor Sharp 5.4 Report from Vice President Communications 5.4.a Report from the Communications Committee (see attached) 5.4.b Sustainable Built Environments Committee Update (see attached) Vice President Fiett Immediate Past President 5.5 Report from Vice President Regulatory Activities 5.5.a Report from the Registrar (see attached) Vice President Cooke 5.6 Report from Vice President Practice Vice President Craddock

3 Open Council Agenda 5.6.a Report from Vice President Practice (see attached) 5.6.b Strategic Opportunities Committee Report on November 4 th Meeting (oral) 5.6.c Project Management and/or Construction Management Services in addition to architectural services on the same project. i.e. Development of agreements (see attached) Deputation from Chair of OAA Complaints Committee 5.6.d Code of Ethics for Architects (see attached) President Councillor Burgess 6.0 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 7.0 ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 7.1 Society Updates (oral) Society Liaisons 7.2 Pro-Demnity Insurance Company Quarterly Report (see attached) SVP and Treasurer 7.3 Report on Attendance at RAIC Roundtable October 22, 2009, Winnipeg (see attached) 7.4 Ontario Association for Applied Architectural Sciences (OAAAS) Newsletter October 2009 (see attached) President & Vice President Craddock Councillors Birdsell & Sharp 7.5 Articles from Publications (see attached) 8.0 OTHER BUSINESS 9.0 DATE OF NEXT MEETING 9.1 The next regular meeting of Council is Thursday December 10 th at 9:30 a.m. at the OAA Headquarters, Toronto, Ontario ADJOURNMENT

4 2.1

5 Ontario Association of Architects FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 2.1 Meeting #190 Open MINUTES September 24, 2009 The one hundred and ninetieth meeting of the Council of the Ontario Association of Architects, held under the Architects Act, took place on Thursday September 24, 2009 at the IIDEX/NeoCon Conference, Direct Energy Centre, Toronto, Ontario. Present: Gerrie Doyle President Louis Cooke Vice President, Regulatory Activities David Craddock Vice President Practice James Farrow Senior Vice President and Treasurer Pawel Fiett Vice President Communications Sean O Reilly Immediate Past President Vladimir Popovic Vice President Strategy J. William Birdsell Councillor Jane Burgess Councillor Jerry Chlebowski Councillor Peter Gabor Councillor Brad Green Councillor Paul Hastings Councillor Elaine Mintz Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee Rob Newman Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee Sheena Sharp Councillor Andre Sherman Councillor (part attendance) Thomas Thoma Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee Michael Visser Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee (part attendance) Kristi Doyle Director of Policy Gordon Masters Director of Operations Hillel Roebuck Registrar Marcia Cooper Communications Specialist Marilyn McInnes Manager, Finance and Administration (part attendance) Tina Carfa Executive Assistant, Executive Services Regrets: None The President called the meeting to order at 5:13 p.m. AGENDA APPROVAL The following item would be added to the agenda: 6.1 Discussion on Conference and Continuing Education It was moved by Mintz and seconded by Sharp that the agenda be approved as amended. -- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY APPROVAL OF MINUTES Reference Material Reviewed: Draft Minutes of the June 25, 2009 Open Council Meeting. The minutes from the June 25, 2009 Open Council Meeting were reviewed by Council.

6 Open Council Minutes June 25, 2009 Page 2 of 9 It was moved by Birdsell and seconded by Green that the minutes of the June 25, 2009 Open Council meeting be approved as circulated. -- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES There was no business arising from the minutes. ITEMS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL Reference Material Reviewed: 2010 Draft Budget (APPENDIX A ) The Senior Vice President and Treasurer presented the draft Budget for The Council agreed by unanimous consent that the 2010 Budget be approved as amended. -- CARRIED (11 in favour, 4 opposed, 2 abstentions) Appointment to University of Toronto School Council (oral) The President reported that there are currently four representatives of the OAA on the University of Toronto school council with staggered four year terms. Member Roberto Chiotti s term is expiring this year. An advertisement to fill the position was placed in e-bulletin and ten indications of interest were received. Members of Council voted by a show of hands to determine an OAA representative on the University of Toronto school council. The Council agreed by unanimous consent to approve the reappointment of Phil Goodfellow as OAA representative on the University of Toronto school council, John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design for a four year term, effective immediately. -- CARRIED (11 in favour, 4 opposed, 2 abstentions) Appointment to the Honours and Awards Task Group (oral) The President reported that Vivian Lo has applied to fill the vacancy on the Task Group and is being recommended by the Communications Committee. The appointment of Vivian Lo to the OAA Honours and Awards Task Group effective immediately was approved by unanimous consent Appointments to the Building Code Energy Advisory Council (BCEAC) (oral) The President reported that members of the Sustainable Built Environments Committee (SBEC) indicated their interest in serving on BCEAC. Submitting their curriculum vitae for consideration were Lou Ampas, Nancy Cohen, Stephen Pope, and Richard Williams. The Council agreed by unanimous consent to put forward the following names: Lou Ampas, Nancy Cohen, Stephen Pope and Richard Williams for consideration of the Minister of Housing for appointment to the Building Code Energy Advisory Council (BCEAC) as recommended by the Sustainable Built Environments Committee Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Vice President Practice, David Craddock dated September 9, 2009 re. SCOBCAR Report/Update and attached background information. (APPENDIX B )

7 Open Council Minutes June 25, 2009 Page 3 of 9 The Vice President Practice reported. It was moved by Craddock and seconded by Sherman that Council approve the draft position proposed by SCOBCAR regarding the initial proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard as required under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from OAA Council CACB Task Group dated September 1, 2009 re. Review of Canadian Education Standard Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) reports to Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) and attached background information. (APPENDIX C ) The Senior Vice President and Treasurer took the Chair. The President reported. It was moved by Sharp and seconded by Popovic that Council approve the recommendations of the OAA s CACB Task Group contained in Appendix B of the report titled Final Report and Recommendations re. Review/Revisions of the Canadian Education Standard and that the President be directed to present that position to the CALA meeting in October. -- CARRIED (1 abstention) The President returned to the Chair Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the External Communications Task Group dated September 14, 2009 re. OAA External Communications. (APPENDIX D ) The President reported. The Council agreed by unanimous consent to approve the strategy proposed with respect to external communications Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from President, Gerrie Doyle dated September 14, 2009 re. Appointment to the Canadian Architectural Certification Board and attached background information. (APPENDIX E ) The President reported. It was moved by Farrow and seconded by Hastings that Council approve the appointment of Gord Richards to the CACB Board of Directors for an additional three year term. -- CARRIED Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from President, Gerrie Doyle dated September 14, 2009 re. Request from local society re. Amendment to OAA QBS Documents and attached background information. (APPENDIX F ) The President reported that the Northumberland-Durham Society of Architects had expressed concern with the Quality Based Selection (QBS) process where some well qualified firms may possibly be excluded from the bidding process. The memorandum from the President to Council was reviewed. It was moved by Popovic and seconded by Green that Council approve the amendments proposed related to the specific scoring criteria in the OAA s QBS template documents. -- CARRIED

8 Open Council Minutes June 25, 2009 Page 4 of 9 The in camera meeting moved to the open meeting at 11:20a.m. to discuss item 4.10 Conference Committee 2010 Theme while Manager Finance and Administration, Marilyn McInnes was present Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the Conference Committee dated September 14, 2009 re. OAA Conference (APPENDIX G ) A member of the Committee and Council reported that Council is being asked to consider a theme for the 2010 Conference in Windsor. The recommendations from the Conference Committee in this regard were reviewed. It was suggested by a Council member that the recommended theme was weak, adding that as a profession green should always have been part of our practice and feels that we are too late and are just following a hot topic. A Council member suggested that the theme be changed to Beyond Green for next year s conference. This theme gives the impression that there is more to the conference than the current green movement. There was considerable discussion regarding the options for conference theme and whether the coned content always follows the theme. It was moved by Hastings and seconded by Gabor that Council approve the conference theme and title for 2010 Green means Go. An amendment to the motion was proposed: It was moved by Burgess and seconded by Popovic that the 2010 conference proposed theme and title be changed to Beyond Green. -- CARRIED It was moved by Hastings and seconded by Gabor that Council approve the conference theme and title for 2010 as Beyond Green. -- CARRIED A Council member indicated that the purpose of the theme is to draw people out and felt that Beyond Green contributed to that. A member of Council suggested that the courses do not necessarily reflect the title of the conference. The importance and real draw is the keynote speaker and there should be a focus on what the speaker is going to talk about. It was agreed by the Council that going forward the next year s theme will be discussed and agreed to at the Council meeting held during that year s conference. Further along at line item 6386 item 6.1 Discussion on Conference and Continuing Education would be outlined Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the Communications Committee dated August 26, 2009 re. Changes/Recommendations for 2010 and 2011 OAA Awards program. (APPENDIX H ) The President suggested that the report be deferred to the November meeting with the exception of consideration of the Allied Arts Award. It was noted that one particular item is time sensitive.

9 Open Council Minutes June 25, 2009 Page 5 of 9 It was moved by Fiett and seconded by O Reilly that Council approve the elimination of the Allied Arts Award for the 2010 OAA Awards Program as recommended by the Honours and Awards Task Group in the memorandum dated August 26, CARRIED It was suggested by a member of Council that a clearer distinction be made between the Order of da Vinci and Randy R. Roberts Awards for nominating purposes Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the Continuing Education Committee dated September 11, 2009 re. Report from OAA Continuing Education Committee and attached background information. (APPENDIX I ) The President suggested that the report be deferred to the November meeting of Council for consideration at that time Reference Material Reviewed: 2010 Draft Council Meeting Dates. (APPENDIX J ) The President reported. It was suggested by a Council member that there also be an October 2010 Council meeting added with the sole purpose of reviewing the 2011 Budget. The President suggested that the July meeting be moved to June 17 th to accommodate Council summer schedules. The Council meeting dates for 2010 were approved by unanimous consent as amended. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS Reference Material Reviewed: President s Log for the period June 26 November 5, (APPENDIX K ) The report was noted for information Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the Committee on the Future of the Profession/Interns dated September 16, 2009 re. Committee on the Future of the Profession/Interns. (APPENDIX L ) The Chair of the Committee and Council member reported that the town halls are moving ahead. Currently being considered are four to five people travelling to Ottawa at a cost of approximately $1-2,000. A member of Council enquired if the Interns reserve fund would be used. The Council member responded that the reserve fund could be used for that purpose. It was moved by Sharp and seconded by Burgess that Council approve travel costs for the members of the Committee on the Future of the Profession/Interns participating in the Ottawa town hall by way of a rental van to include one night s accommodations to be funded through the Intern reserve fund. -- CARRIED Update from the OAA Structures Committee (oral) There was no further update since the last meeting of Council.

10 Open Council Minutes June 25, 2009 Page 6 of 9 Noted for information Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Chair of the Communications Committee and Vice President, Communications, Pawel Fiett dated September 4, 2009 re. Communications Committee Update. (APPENDIX M ) The report was noted for information Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the Sustainable Built Environments Committee (SBEC) dated September 15, 2009 re. Update of Committee Activities and attached background information. (APPENDIX N ) The report was noted for information Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the Continuing Education Committee dated September 14, 2009 re. Report from OAA Continuing Education Committee End of Cycle Update and attached background information. (APPENDIX O ) The report was noted for information Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the Committee for the Examination for Architects in Canada (CExAC) dated September 15, 2009 re. Examination for Architects in Canada (ExAC) and attached background information. (APPENDIX P ) Roebuck noted that in the July 7 th CExAC minutes on page seven, point eight that there is no connection between Broadly Experienced Foreign Architects (BEFA) candidates and ExAC. The President disagreed with paragraph 3c. She reported that at the July CALA meeting in Montreal following a discussion on the mandatory 2,800 hour requirement prior to sitting the ExAC, she had requested all of the CALA presidents to give a show of hands of support for not having this a mandatory requirement. The show of hands (vote) was unanimous in support. The President indicated that all provincial presidents were to take the matter back to their respective councils for discussion and final decision. CALA further recommended that the 2,800 hour requirement be strongly recommended to exam proponents but not be mandatory. It was moved by O Reilly and seconded by Chlebowski that Council approve the Revised ExAC Agreement Protocol and the Revised Terms of Reference of the CExAC as outlined in the memorandum dated September 15, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Vice President Regulatory Activities, Louis Cooke dated September 14, 2009 re. Activities Under the Registrar June 11, 2009 through September 14, (APPENDIX Q ) Roebuck reported that for 2009 there are 193 new members, a 40% increase over 2008, adding that 56 wrote the ExAC and of these 36 were Interns of greater than five years. The report was noted for information Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Vice President Practice, David Craddock dated August 31, 2009 re. Practice Portfolio Report/Update. (APPENDIX R ) The report was noted for information.

11 Open Council Minutes June 25, 2009 Page 7 of Strategic Opportunities Committee ORC Road Show (oral) An oral report on the road show will be provided at the November meeting of Council Short Form Standard Agreement for Architectural Services Report (oral) A report to Council will be provided at the November meeting. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION It was moved by Sharp and seconded by Mintz that the item Discussion on Conference and Continuing Education be added to the agenda for discussion. -- CARRIED Discussion on Conference and Continuing Education (oral) A member of Council reported that for financial reasons, the OAA Conferences should all be held in Toronto. It was moved by Mintz and seconded by Burgess that Windsor remain as the venue for the 2010 Conference. -- CARRIED (10 in favour, 4 opposed, 3 abstentions) The President indicated that she spoke with IIDEX and requested a proposal from them should the OAA choose to hold the conference in Toronto in concert with IIDEX. The current Conference planner s contract is up for renewal and it was suggested that if a contract is signed for a conference planner, it would likely be only for a one year period. It was noted by the President that when the Conference is held in Toronto, although there is a larger number of attendants, there is not necessarily an increase in the number of delegate packages. It should also be noted that the Toronto conferences always occur on an end of Cycle ConEd year, which may contribute to the increased number of attendants. It was noted by a Council member that travel for individuals participating in the Admission Course would be difficult if held in Windsor. A Council member reported that in planning for maximized attendance at each Conference, there is a balance between what to charge for the full conference package and at the same time garnering the maximum number of attendees. It was suggested by a member of Council that the OAA should engage in discussions with IIDEX with respect to holding the annual conference at the same time and location as IIDEX. A Council member indicated that the conference planning at this time should remain unchanged for 2010 since planning for such an event is time intensive and commitments have been made, adding that there would be a benefit to Windsor s economic situation at the same time. K. Doyle noted that a member of the St. Clair Society of Architects had suggested that St. Clair College may be able to provide some rooming space and possibly lecture rooms if needed for the Admission Course. It was moved by Sharp and seconded by Mintz that Council approve the location of the 2010 Admission Course to be Windsor to be held in concert with the OAA Conference. -- CARRIED

12 Open Council Minutes June 25, 2009 Page 8 of 9 The President recalled in May that there was an arrangement made for a travel allowance and possibly arrangements for busing. It was suggested that the Conference Committee work with the Committee on the Future of the Profession/Interns to determine the feasibility of funding travel for Admission Course participants. It was suggested by a member of Council that holding the Admission Course with the Conference is a positive means by which to promote collegiality in the profession and foster an opportunity for the Interns to mingle with their peers. Roebuck reported that there is a time constraint with regards to the booking with Ryerson and would need to notify the school as soon as possible. The Council confirmed that the decision has been made to move the Admission Course 2010 to Windsor. It was noted by Roebuck that since the Admission Course has been reduced to three from five days, there has been some concern expressed by the lecturers that there is insufficient time permitted to cover their topics, adding that it would be of benefit to increase the Course by a day. Roebuck indicated that lectures could be delivered through the Continuing Education Program and tie back into the Conference. It was agreed that a separate Task Group should be set up to work on a proposal to bring the 2010 Admission Course to Windsor and report to the next meeting of Council. Volunteers who indicated their interest in participating in this task group were the Senior Vice President and Treasurer, Vice President Strategic, Councillors Burgess, Gabor, Sharp, and Thoma, and Roebuck. Council broke for lunch at 12:30pm and resumed the in camera portion of the meeting at 1:10p.m. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION Reference Material Reviewed: Draft Agenda for OAA Society Visits (APPENDIX S ) The draft agenda was noted for information Reference Material Reviewed: Correspondence from Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Director, David Clarke to OAA President, Gerrie Doyle dated August 13,2009 re. A Guide to Bidding & Supplementary Conditions for Healthcare Projects and attached background information. (APPENDIX T ) The report was noted for information Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Senior Vice President and Treasurer, James Farrow dated September 14, 2009 re. Pro-Demnity Insurance Company Quarterly Report and attached background information. (APPENDIX U ) The report was deferred to the November meeting of Council Reference Material Reviewed: Articles from Publications. (APPENDIX V ) The articles were noted for information. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business.

13 Open Council Minutes June 25, 2009 Page 9 of 9 DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of Council is Thursday November 5, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. at the OAA Headquarters, Toronto, Ontario. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Mintz and seconded by Cooke that the meeting be adjourned at 5:45 p.m. -- CARRIED UANIMOUSLY President Date

14 2.2

15 Ontario Association of Architects FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 2.2 Special Meeting MINUTES October 16, 2009 A special meeting of the Council of the Ontario Association of Architects, held under the Architects Act, took place via conference call on Friday, October 16, 2009 in Toronto, Ontario. Present: Gerrie Doyle President Louis Cooke Vice President, Regulatory Activities David Craddock Vice President Practice J. William Birdsell Councillor Jerry Chlebowski Councillor Brad Green Councillor Elaine Mintz Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee Sheena Sharp Councillor Andre Sherman Councillor Thomas Thoma Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee Gordon Masters Director of Operations Hillel Roebuck Registrar Tina Carfa Executive Assistant, Executive Services Regrets: Jane Burgess Councillor James Farrow Senior Vice President and Treasurer Pawel Fiett Vice President Communications Peter Gabor Councillor Paul Hastings Councillor Sean O Reilly Immediate Past President Vladimir Popovic Vice President Strategy Michael Visser Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee Kristi Doyle Director of Policy The President called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. NEW BUSINESS 1.0 Conference Theme 2010 (oral)) The President reported that there was interest expressed by members of Council to change the theme for the 2010 Conference. It was noted by the President that Council had voted to approve the theme Beyond Green at its September 24, 2009 meeting. In accordance with the OAA By-Laws Revised 2006, a vote of 2/3 of the meeting attendees would be required to reopen the issue. It was moved by Sharp and seconded by Thoma that the issue of the 2010 Conference Theme Beyond Green be reopened for discussion. -- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY It was moved by Sharp and seconded by Birdsell that Council approve the revision of the 2010 Conference Theme to The Changing Face of Architecture. -- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY It was suggested by a member of Council that the tag for the 2010 Conference Theme be left with the Conference Committee.

16 Special Meeting of Council Minutes October 16, 2009 Page 2 of 2 The Council members agreed by unanimous consent to allow for the Conference Committee to create the tag for the 2010 Conference Theme, The Changing Face of Architecture. The President noted that Windsor has been working to improve its economy and that the Theme would tie in well with their initiatives. A member of Council indicated that there is an event planned in Windsor on October 29 which is a meeting titled Inspirations and Innovations and would suggest that the OAA s presence would be of benefit. It was reported by a Council member that a new Conference planner has been selected and the Committee is excited to work with them going forward. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Sharp and seconded by Thoma that the meeting be adjourned at 9:05 a.m. President Date

17 4.1

18 FOR COUNCIL MEETING September November 24, 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 4.11 Memorandum To: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Rob Newman Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma From: Communications Committee Pawel Fiett Vice President Communications Date: August 26, 2009 Committee Members: Lou Ampas Jane Burgess Andre Sherman Subject: Changes/Recommendations for 2010 and 2011 OAA Awards program. Objective: To provide an update on the changes for 2010 and proposed changes for subsequent years. Background: The Honours and Awards Task Group undertook an annual review of the Awards Program this summer following the Celebration of Excellence Awards Ceremony in May of this year. The Task Group reflected on the 2009 experience by highlighting areas that were done well and identifying areas that require improvement, all with the goal of enhancing the program while ensuring that the program is still relevant to its membership. At the August 20, 2009 meeting, the Task Group finalized its focus and recommendations to be implemented for the 2010/2011 program. /2 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

19 2 The Main areas for review: 1. Peer Recognition - Change the Celebration of Excellence presentation format for the Order of da Vinci, G. Randy Roberts Award and Best in Show. 2. Reinforcement of the focus/original intent of the Order of da Vinci award. 3. Elimination of the Allied Arts Award in the 2010 program 4. Addition of NEW Lifetime Achievement award to be developed throughout the year and launched for the 2011 program 1.) Peer Recognition -Change the Presentation format for the Order of da Vinci, G. Randy Roberts Award and Best in Show The Committee felt that it was very important to make architects of Service Award and Best in Show Stars for their special achievement. They also felt that it would be more effective and meaningful if the award was presented by a peer or colleague. Action: o Previous award winners of the Order of da Vinci, G. Randy Roberts Service Award and the Best in Show are invited to participate in the following year s ceremony. They would present the award to the new winner on stage at the awards ceremony. Budget Implications: Complimentary Celebration of Excellence tickets for 2 individuals from each Award Category (6x$150=$900) Overall Costs:= +$900 2.) Reinforce the original intent of the Order of da Vinci award. The Committee noticed that a lot of the submissions received for the 2008 & 2009 Order of da Vinci Category were lacking information regarding the architects leadership in the profession, education and/or service to the profession. Some submissions focused entirely on the design aspect of an architect s career which was not the original intent of the award. The original intent of the award which was developed by past OAA President, Alf Roberts was to recognize individuals who demonstrated exceptional leadership in the profession, education and or service to the profession or the community. Action: o o Revise the award description to ensure the original intent of the award is clear Reinforce the focus of the award in Pre-Jury Package and in Jury-day introduction. Budget Implications: $0: OAA Staff time /Committee Members will review/revise the final text. /3 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

20 3 3.) Elimination of the Allied Arts Award in the 2010 Program The Committee feels that it is time for the removal of the Allied Arts Award from the OAA Awards Program. The Allied Arts Award honours outstanding achievement in arts allied to architecture. e.g. artisans, sculptors, photographers, writers, historians, etc. The Allied Arts Award has received a very low amount of entries within the last 10 years. Please see numbers in chart below: Allied Arts Award Submission Statistics: In 2000, 2005 and 2009 there were no entries at all and in 2008 the judges felt that the two nominations that were received were not worthy of an award. The Committee feels that there may not be a clear understanding of the award and there is a definite lack of interest. Despite numerous marketing/awareness campaigns to allied professionals, the public, schools and members, the number of submissions has not increased significantly. The Committee feels that this award should be eliminated for the 2010 program and a new award should be developed for Budget Implications: - Celebration of Excellence Tickets ($150 x 2 = $300) cost of Plaque $165 Overall cost=-$465 (subtracted from the overall budget with the elimination of the award.) 4.) Addition of New Lifetime Achievement Award to be developed throughout the year and launched for the 2011 program. The Committee feels that there is a need for a NEW Lifetime Achievement Award. One of the reasons for advocating this award is they want to reinforce recognition of the continuing Design Excellence of Ontario architects. The proposed Lifetime achievement award would replace the Allied Arts Award. They feel that a significant amount of research and development is required and thus do not feel there is enough time to complete this for the 2010 program. However, they would like to develop the new award throughout the year and launch this new award for Budget Implications: Celebration of Excellence Tickets - ($150 x 2 = $300) Costs of Plaque -$165, First Year only wall of honour to be created, estimate: $1,000 Overall Costs=+$1465 Action: To review and give direction on the recommended changes to the 2010/2011 OAA Awards program. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

21 4.2

22 FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 4.2 Memorandum To: From: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma Gerrie Doyle, President Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser Date: November 3, 2009 Subject: Report from Meeting of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities re. Review of Canadian Education Standard Objective: To provide Council with an update regarding the discussion at the national meeting of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) regarding the review of the Revised Canadian Education Standard and specifically how the OAA s concerns have been addressed. Background: 1. Recall that the final draft of the revised Canadian Education Standard was presented to Council at its September 24, 2009 meeting along with the final report and recommendations of the OAA s own Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) Task Group which had been set up to review the proposed changes to the national document. 2. Attached you will find a copy of those recommendations that were included in the Council package. Noted below as well is the motion that was passed by Council in response: It was moved by Sharp and seconded by Popovic that Council approve the recommendations of the OAA s CACB Task Group contained in Appendix B of the report titled Final Report and Recommendations re. Review/Revisions of the Canadian Education Standard and that the President be directed to present that position to the CALA meeting in October. -- CARRIED (1 abstention) 3. The OAA s position was presented to the members of CALA at the recent meeting in Winnipeg and I would suggest that resolution to OAA s concerns has been reached as follows (refer to the attached page for a better description of the issue and the position of the OAA Task Group): 1. Mandatory submission of the Academic Work Portfolio 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

23 2 The CALA group had considerable discussion on this matter at the October meeting, and there was unanimous consent that the Academic Work Portfolio not be a mandatory requirement. It was noted specifically that this would be a new requirement that may be very onerous for individuals coming from countries where their personal/professional belongings are no longer available or accessible. The matter of provincial fairness legislation(s) was also at the forefront of the conversation and the fact that this would make the process more onerous than it currently is. It was also suggested that the Government s Fairness Commission might object to this Mandatory requirement. Given that our own group was divided on this issue, I suggest that we concur with the consensus of the CALA group that this not be a mandatory requirement. 2. Definition of Performance Standards The OAA Task Group had not disagreed with the inclusion of this information and the CALA group agreed that it is a process/procedural matter to be dealt with via CACB operating policies and procedures. The National CACB Task group will follow up with CACB to ensure clarity and fairness of the policy/process. 3. RAIC Centre for Architecture at Athabasca University The CALA group concurred with the OAA position in that it is premature to mention the new Centre for Architecture and all agreed to maintain status quo of reference to the existing RAIC Syllabus of Studies program. 4. Inclusion of appeal process within CES There was considerable discussion at the CALA table regarding the notion of a second level of appeal to a group of CALA. It was noted early in the discussion that the CACB has been subject to some level of review by the Ontario Fairness Commissioner and that review did not prompt any concern with respect to the CACB s existing appeal process. The President and the Executive Director reviewed the existing appeal process for the members of CALA who did not express concern with the manner in which it is currently functioning. A number of members of CALA noted as well that it would likely be inappropriate for the CALA to be the mechanism for appeal given that they are structured as a committee of the regulators with no formal or legal status which would open that group to direct liability. 5. Oral Examination All had agreed with the recommendation of the National Task Group and the OAA Task Group that there be no oral examination for the RAIC Syllabus program graduates. 6. WORK/STUDY Assessment Committee All had agreed with the recommendation of the National Task Group and the OAA Task Group that there is no need for the additional Work/Study Committee for the Syllabus program graduates. 7. National Competency Standard There was considerable discussion around the proposed National Competency Standard and the group did agree with the OAA s recommended language change as outlined in the attached pages for that specific paragraph. It has however been suggested by the National Task Group (based on concern raised by a number of the Task Group s Council s) that it is premature to place the National Competency Standard 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

24 3 within the formal document and are recommending that it be deleted at the present time. Given that the OAA Task Group had also expressed some concern around its placement in the CES, I suggested that the OAA might be agreeable to this change. It can be properly placed in the CES once it has been reviewed and approved by all of the Regulators. 4. The National CACB Task Group is currently making the necessary changes to the final document to reflect these decisions which will be sent to all of the Provincial/Territorial Regulators for completion of a signature page once the French translation has occurred. 5. The final draft in English will be available at the Council meeting on Thursday for review should anyone wish to see the final version. Action: Subject to OAA Council agreement with the above recommendations, Council to direct the President to complete the signature page of the revised Canadian Education Standard once final editing has occurred based on the above noted directions at the CALA meeting in Winnipeg, October Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

25 4 Report from OAA Council Task Group to September 24, 2009 meeting re. Revised Canadian Education Standard. 1. Mandatory submission of the Academic Work Portfolio (ref. section 2(a), page 7.) A considerable change under the CES and CACB would be the mandatory submission of an Academic Work Portfolio. Reference within CES (section 2(a) page 7): Refer to Section 2a. of the revised CES for first reference to the new requirement and refer to side margin comment (KD11). Also refer to Part C. third paragraph and side margin comment (KD 19). Also referenced under Performance Standards, page 16. National CACB Task Group recommendation: National CACB Task Group has considered this item and per the report and recommendations from the Task Group as suggesting that the requirement not be accepted. Refer to Task Group Report for an explanation. OAA Council Task Group review/recommendation: OAA Council Task Group is divided on the inclusion of this new mandatory requirement. Some suggest it is an obvious requirement to assess the individuals academic ability/knowledge. Other feels it is an additional requirement that is not currently called for. Will individuals be able to produce it.? What does it add to the assessment. Council Task Group would like to have additional discussion at the September Council meeting with Council. 2. Definition of Performance Standards (ref. section 3, page 16) Agreement with the Performance standards for assessment i.e. either Understanding or Ability in each area of required study. Reference within CES: Refer to page 16, section 3. and side margin comment KD21 National CACB Task Group recommendation: National Task Group recommendations approval of this change/addition to the CES. OAA Council Task Group review/recommendation: OAA Council Task Group does not disagree conceptually with the inclusion, however there is some concern about how the CACB then assesses whether specific courses actually impart understanding or ability upon completion. Perhaps this is a process/procedure question as opposed to a matter to be conveyed in the CES? 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

26 5 3. RAIC Centre for Architecture at Athabasca University (ref. section 4.1, page 8) Athabasca University (AU) courses can be used to address deficiencies in an applicant s education. Also consider references to RAIC Centre for Architecture at Athabasca University throughout the document as new. Reference within CES: Refer to page 8, Section 4.1 and side margin comment KD15. National CACB Task Group recommendation: National CACB Task Group recommends approval of this change/addition to the CES. OAA Council Task Group review/recommendation: OAA Council Task Group has expressed concern with respect to naming AU specifically within the document. There may be a perceived conflict. The Task Group suggests that the CES not be specific as to how/where deficiencies can be addressed but rather indicate that a published list of acceptable courses/institutions is available from the CACB. 4. Inclusion of appeal process within CES (ref. section 9, page 9) The appeal process described is the CACB s current process which has been in place for some time, however not directly conveyed in the CES. Last paragraph, however of section 5.1 is new. Appeal within CACB is to a separate group of reviewers not original reviewers. Reference within CES: Refer to page 9 section 5, and side margin comments KD17 and KD18. National CACB Task Group recommendation: National Task Group is recommending approval of the addition of this section to the CES. OAA Council Task Group review/recommendation: OAA Council Task Group agrees with the inclusion of the appeal process in the CES, and would like to recommend that an additional level of appeal be established which would be to a committee of CALA that would focus on appeal of due process, not substance of a particular case. 5. Oral Examination (ref. section 2, page 6) Oral examination is new requirement for both ATHABASCA U graduates as well as those in current RAIC Syllabus program. Reference within CES: Refer to page 6, section 2, third paragraph and side margin comments KD Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

27 6 National CACB Task Group recommendation: National CACB Task Group has considered this item and per the report and recommendations from the Task Group as suggesting that the requirement not be accepted. Refer to Task Group Report for an explanation OAA Council Task Group review/recommendation: The OAA Council Task Group concurs with the recommendation of the National Task Group. 6. WORK/STUDY Assessment Committee (ref. section 2b. page 7) WORK/STUDY Assessment Committee is new for assessment of Syllabus and Athabasca U. grads. The existing process is for all non-accredited degree applicants to be assessment by the same Committee (members do vary) however same mandate and process. Reference within CES: Refer to page 7 section 2b. and side margin comments KD13. National CACB Task Group recommendation: National CACB Task Group has considered this item and per the report and recommendations from the Task Group as suggesting that the requirement not be accepted. Refer to Task Group Report for an explanation OAA Council Task Group review/recommendation: The OAA Council Task Group concurs with the recommendation of the National Task Group. 7. National Competency Standard (ref. 2 nd paragraph, page 5) A Competency standard for architecture will be developed by the Regulators Reference within CES: Refer to page 5, second paragraph and side margin comment KD2. National CACB Task Group recommendation: The National Task Group has suggested support for a Competency Standard related to architecture, however some concern as to how this fits into the CES given little information available at this time. OAA Council Task Group review/recommendation: OAA Council Task Group has some concern with this and its inclusion in the CES. Task Group does not object to the notion of a national competency standard for architecture. Notwithstanding that concern, the Task Group is not opposed to the reference in the CES but feels that the paragraph which explains it needs to be altered slightly. Refer to page 5 to see proposed change. Action: For information only. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

28 4.3

29 FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 4.3 Memorandum To: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Rob Newman Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma From: Continuing Education Committee Gerrie Doyle Paul Hastings Elaine Mintz Date: September 11, 2009 Subject: Report from OAA Continuing Education Committee Objectives: 1. To obtain Council approval to modify the External Providers Fee Schedule as it relates to assessment of CORE learning. 2. To consider promotion of External Programs/Training for a nominal fee on the OAA Web site which fall into the category of Self-Directed Opportunities. Background: 1. Council approved the Continuing Education Framework in 1998, and launched the OAA Continuing Education Program January 1, The original framework approved by Council contemplated development of all OAA- Directed (now CORE) educational programs internally and made it available in both live and distance education format. 3. After three Continuing Education Cycles, it had been acknowledged that while the OAA is capable of developing comprehensive educational programs which address diverse educational needs of Ontario architects, it requires human and financial resources which are not available within the Association. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

30 2 4. In 2006 it was proposed by the Continuing Education Committee that the structure of the Continuing Education Program be changed to allow acceptance of external educational activities as CORE learning if they meet quality assurance requirements established by the OAA. In addition, this change was consistent with discussion at the national level to implement reciprocal acceptance of core learning activities across the country. 5. In April 2007 the following changes to the OAA Continuing Education Program were approved by Council: OAA will assess external providers and their individual courses as CORE learning under the OAA Continuing Education Program; There will be a cost to individuals/groups/institutions that wish to be assessed as CORE learning and be included on the list of OAA Accredited Providers; Before being included on the Accredited Providers list, each educational module will be assessed according to criteria established by the national document Quality Assurance for Continuing Education Activities for the Architecture Profession in Canada ; Programs designated as CORE learning under the OAA Continuing Education Program will be re-assessed at a specified interval; Some organizations/institutions will receive automatic recognition as CORE given their previous involvement with the OAA and as proven deliverers of Continuing Education for architects: American Institute of Architects, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada; Canada Mortgage & Housing Corp., other Proivincial Associations, ProDemnity Insurance Co., and Ontario Schools of Architecture. 6. The External Provider Assessment Process was implemented in January 1, 2008 at the start of Continuing Education Cycle 5. After being in place for a period of 20 months, the following became clear as a result of careful monitoring by OAA staff: External providers are very interested in promoting their educational activities to the OAA membership. A list of organizations that applied for an assessment since January 2008 is attached (Appendix A) the uptake has been considerable; External providers are willing to pay a fee for being assessed and, most importantly, for being able to promote programs to Ontario architects via e- bulletin and the OAA Web site; External providers are anxious to use the OAA ConEd Logo on their promotional materials as OAA visual attributes raise the awareness of the program which leads to higher attendance, and as a result increase the program revenue. 7. The exposure and benefit that these organizations and companies are receiving is considerable and after careful review, the cost they pay for advertising with the OAA is far less that other means currently available. In addition there is a considerable amount of staff time involved in assessing the applications, coordinating material on the Web site and maintaining currency of the information. At the Continuing Education Committee meeting which took place on July 21, 2009, it had been agreed that the following changes to the assessment fee schedule would be reasonable: Eliminate the flat assessment fee of $500 and replace it with the floating assessment fee which is tied to the program registration cost; 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

31 3 The cost for an assessment would be double the registration cost, if it is offered by a non-profit organization, educational institution or government agency; The cost for an assessment would be triple the registration cost, if it is offered by any other industry providers (trade suppliers etc); Retain the flat assessment fee of $500 for the educational programs which are offered free of charge. A summary of proposed changes to the External Providers Assessment Fee schedule is attached (Appendix B). 8. It is projected that if the updated Assessment Fee Schedule is approved, the annual revenue generated by external providers might jump from current $5,000 to $30,000 given the same number of applications are received by the OAA in The Committee brings to Council s attention that the external providers assessment fees charged by other professional associations are higher than currently established at the OAA. The Committee prepared a synopsis of fees charged for the same service by the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC), The American Institute of Architects (AIA), and The Project Management Institute (PMI). The synopsis is attached (Appendix C) 10. As a second issue, the OAA staff has advised that there are a considerable number of training providers who understand that they would not fall into the category of CORE learning under our Program, however are still very interested in promoting their sessions to Ontario architects as Self-Directed learning on the OAA Web site. In the past the OAA has been selective in posting this information on our site based on benefit to its members in addition to the time and resources needed to process the information. The Committee recommends for OAA Council to consider charging a fee to these organizations/companies for advertising information about their sessions to our members on the Self-Directed Opportunities Web page. 11. Note that the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) launched this initiative recently. For a flat fee of $50 per month, the link to the program is kept on the RAIC s Web site until the budget expires. The minimal period for which a provider must advertise its program is 6 months. 12. If approved by Council, the proposed changes to the External Providers Assessment Fee Schedule will be implemented with the start of Cycle 2010/11. Action: 1. To obtain Council approval to modify the External Providers Fee Schedule as it relates to assessment of CORE learning as recommended by the ConEd Committee. 2. To consider promotion of External Programs/Training on the OAA Web site which fall into the category of Self-Directed learning Opportunities based on a nominal fee. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

32

33

34

35 APPENDIX C Assessment Fee Schedules at PMI, AIBC, AIA Project Management Institute Registered Educational Provider (REP) Assessment Fees Schedule R.E.P. Program. All fees paid to PMI are nonrefundable. Levels of enrollment in R.E.P. Program: Provider $ (US) yearly fee Training organizations offering three (3) courses or fewer to the public. At the Provider level, the organization may register up to three (3) courses in the R.E.P. Database without additional fees. There is a $ (US) annual charge for each additional course registered after initial three (3). registration level.) Charter Provider $ (US) yearly fee Charter Providers were among the original Providers who enrolled in the PMI R.E.P. Program. Any providers who enrolled after 1 June 2000 do not have the opportunity to have this special designation. See Provider level for more details. Global Provider $ (US) yearly fee Training organizations offering more than three (3) courses to the public. At the Global Provider level, the organization may register an unlimited number of courses in the R.E.P. Database with and services for this registration level.) Charter Global Provider $ (US) yearly fee Charter Global Providers were among the original Providers who enrolled in the PMI R.E.P. Program. Any providers who enrolled after 1 June 2000 do not have the opportunity to have this special designation. See Global Provider level for more details. Internal Training Provider $ (US) yearly fee Training departments providing courses solely to employees of their organization and not requiring advertisement of these courses within the R.E.P. Provider Course Listing Search. At the Internal Training Provider level, the organization may register an unlimited number of courses in complete listing of benefits and services for this registration level.) GAC Accredited Degree Program $ (US) yearly fee This category is reserved for universities with project management degree programs accredited by PMI and the Global Accreditation Center. This category only applies to the department or unit within the university that maintains the accredited degree. PMI Component Provider $ (US) yearly fee A PMI Chapter, PMI Specific Interest Group or PMI College offering courses to their members and the public. At the PMI Component Provider level, the organization may register an unlimited 1

36 APPENDIX C Assessment Fee Schedules at PMI, AIBC, AIA The Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC) Registered Educational Provider (REP) Assessment Fees Schedule Levels of enrollment in R.E.P. Program: One Time Provider $250 annual fee This category is for providers who wish to register a one time event such as an Annual Conference. AIBC Charter / Architectural Firm $200 annual fee AIBC Chapters or Architectural firms can apply to register as a provider for Chapter educational essions. In addition, firms who have other offices in Canada, can Annual Event $500 annual fee This category is for providers who wish to register a special event such as a Trade Show or Exhibition where educational offerings will be held. Trade Shows or Exhibitions in themselves do not qualify for LUs. Annual Provider $700 annual fee Organizations including those such as government agencies, industry, educational and commercial can apply to become annual registered providers. This category includes educational sessions, which have been accredited and will be offered more than once during the year, as well as courses or programs which have been accredited and will be offered annually. 2

37 APPENDIX C Assessment Fee Schedules at PMI, AIBC, AIA The American Institute of Architects (AIA) Continuing Education Systems (CES) Registered Provider Program Provider Categories: Basic - Annual Fee $1,475 A Provider who offers education activities in one AIA region Regional - Annual Fee $1,875 A Provider who offers on-site education in two AIA regions. Passport Annual Fee $3,325 This category is for providers offering education activities on a national or international basis, and/or providers offering a distance education program (e.g. course on the Internet, CD-ROM, video, workbook, magazine, pod casts, etc.). Professional Organization Annual Fee $650 This category is for academic institutions, government agencies, non-profit associations who offer professional education programs or distance education courses, architectural firms who offer programs to their employees and other architectural groups; or engineering and law firms offering this service to their own employees. A/E/C Management Consulting firms providing services to the A/E profession are NOT considered a Professional Organization for the purpose of the CES Program and should apply as either Basic, Regional or Passport Providers. AIA Architecture Firms Annual Fee $475 AIA member architecture/engineering firms (in which a principal or owner is an AIA member) who offer education programs to their firm employees only. 3

38 4.4

39 FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 4.4 Memorandum To: From: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma Sheena Sharp, Councillor Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser Date: October 28, 2009 Subject: Proposed Practice Standards Task Group Objective: To consider the establishment of a Practice Standards Task Group. To consider approval of the draft terms of reference for the proposed Task Group. Background: 1. A Task Group is being proposed to investigate the possibility of developing and establishing practice standards for the profession as they relate to specific tasks and services that are performed within an architectural firm, and that they would be performed by a Licensed Architect and/or a Licensed Technologist, OAA. 2. The value of an architectural licence has been at the forefront of many discussions among Council, committees and members at large in terms of demographics and those who had been Interns for life. The over-arching concern has been lack of incentive. 3. The attached draft Terms of Reference are provided to Council for consideration and comment. It is recognized that the potential impact of this issue is consideration, and this Task Group would provide a forum for the discussion. The intention of the Task Group is to have an open and broad discussion of the issue and ensure input from the members and holders at large. 4. It is suggested that the Background section of the draft terms of reference provide a good overview of the issue and the underlying reasons for the creation of the Task Group and investigation of the issue. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

40 2 5. As an additional note, the Professional Engineers Ontario have recently moved forward with a number of new standards of practice for professional engineers which are not unlike that which would be investigated by this new Task Group. 6. Council is being asked to consider approval of the proposed terms of reference, including the suggested budget. Action: Council to consider approval of the terms of reference for proposed Practice Standards Task Group. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

41 DRAFT Terms of Reference Task Group on Practice Standards Overarching Task Group Objectives and Goals: To investigate the possibility of developing and establishing practice standards for the profession as they relate to specific tasks and services that are performed within an architectural firm, and that they be performed by a Licensed Architect and/or a Licensed Technologist, OAA. In achieving its mandate, the Task Group will discuss this issue broadly with the profession to gauge support from the holders and members in the form of member consultation. The Task Group will prepare a final report and recommend possible action by the OAA. The Report and Recommendations should be presented to Council by March 2010, in order that any changes, should they be approved, could be discussed further and/or announced at the OAA Annual Conference. Background: 1. In accordance with the Architects Act, the OAA can through Regulation establish, maintain and develop standards of qualification and standards of practice for the practice of architecture. 2. At the present time, the profession does not require that certain tasks performed within an architectural practice, aside from sealing and signing drawings, be performed by individuals with any specific training. This situation does not allow for much value to be placed on the architectural licence within a firm. 3. Approximately half of the licensed architects in Ontario are not holders, however work for a holder. The majority of architectural technologists also work within architectural firms. 4. The OAAAS has struck its own committee to look at the very slow progress being made by OAAAS. The possibility of mandating that certain technical tasks within a firm must be performed by a Licensed Architect or Licensed Technologist OAA has been discussed. Information from this OAA Task Group would inform options for the OAAAS committee. 5. There is currently a grandfathering process at OAAAS which expires in This process could facilitate the flow of additional Licensed Technologists, OAA

42 into the profession. Recommendations of this Task Group may create additional incentive for them to pursue licensure. 6. The OAA made recent changes to specific elements of the internship process which have been very successful. It is suggested that the increase in architects as a result reduces the burden on firms to find architects to perform these newly defined tasks. Task Group Membership: The Task Group is comprised of: The President of OAAAS, David Mailing, OAA. 3 Members of Council. (TBD) 4 Members at Large (TBD) The Chair is to be appointed by the members of the Committee. OAA Staff support to be provided by: OAA Director of Policy, Kristi Doyle and OAA Registrar, Hillel Roebuck. Reporting to Council: Regular reporting between the Task Group and the Council will occur during scheduled meetings and will be facilitated through the Vice President/Councillors appointed to the Task Group. Those Members of Council will be responsible for bringing items forward to Council for their consideration/approval as appropriate. Budget Total budget for the work of the Task Group not to exceed $5,000. A proposed breakdown of the budget is as follows: Conference Calls of Task Group $1,500 Member consultation ( /web site): $ 0 Member consultation Focus Groups/Conference session $2,500 Task Group Meetings/Travel $1,000 $5,000 Meetings: A schedule of meetings will be established by the committee that ensures completion of the final Report and Recommendations by March 2010.

43 Meetings of the Committee can be held via conference call or electronically if appropriate to do so. October 28, 2009

44 4.5

45 Memorandum FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 4.5 To: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser From: Council Conference Committee Elaine Mintz Gerrie Doyle Paul Hastings Date: October 27, 2009 Subject: OAA Conference 2010 Objective: To provide Council with the proposed Conference Title and Theme for acceptance and to provide the status on Conference Background: 1. The OAA Conference 2010 will be held in Windsor, May 5 8, 2010 at Casino Windsor. 2. A number of meetings have been held to date to review Conference 2009 and start planning Conference An RFP for Conference Planners was issued in July, 2009 as the three year contract with our current Planner had expired. The Conference Committee and staff met with five prospective Planners on October 9 th and 13 th. Historically, contracts for Planners, based on Council s direction, were for three years. The RFP for 2010 was revised to a one year term with an option for an additional two years pending further discussion on OAA future conferences. Moore Carlyle Consulting (MCC) was awarded a one year contract. Their presentation was professional and well organized. They provided fresh new ideas to enhance Conference 2010 and the sponsorship program. President Doyle and the Conference Team had the preliminary orientation meeting with MCC on October 20 th to move forward ASAP with the sponsorship program, which is significantly behind schedule and may affect sponsorship funding for 2010.

46 2 4. The Conference Committee has revised the Conference theme and title based on Council direction as follows: The Changing Face of Architecture Participate in helping shape the future of the profession. The profession in Ontario and throughout the world is made up of individual architects with unique skills and perspectives who collectively share a passion and a commitment to the built environment. We are experiencing extraordinary times and the evolution of architecture seems on an escalating fast-track. Today we are facing changes in practice including BIM, new forms of contract, new technologies, developing global competition and the emerging solutions in sustainable design. As a profession we are dealing with the challenges of demographics, changes to the Intern Architect Program and recognizing Internationally-Trained Professionals. It takes all voices and contributions to effectively shape change. Be a part of it! Join us May 5 8 in Windsor. Objectives: Create awareness of the top issues among the profession Engage everyone involved: students, interns, architects and senior practitioners Create a buzz and recognize contributions from everyone 5. Additional information: ConEd Call for Proposals The Call for Proposals was issued, based on continuing education streams, on September 15 th with a submission deadline of October 30th. is in the process of reviewing potential presentations and presenters. The results from Call for Proposals will be reviewed by the Committee, with the assistance of Ellen Savitsky, early in November. The goal is to compile the ConEd Roster for Council approval at the December Council meeting. Action: For Council to approve the final 2010 Conference Title and Theme as proposed by the Conference Committee.

47 5.1.a

48 President's Log FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 5.1.a Date Event Location OAA Rep's Sept 24 ARIDO Gala Event Toronto G Doyle Sept 25 OGCA Annual General Meeting Ottawa G Doyle Sept 28 Meeting with PEO Toronto G Doyle D Craddock K Doyle Sept 29 Thunder G Doyle Thunder Bay Society Visit Bay K Doyle Sept 30 October 2 October 3 October 6 October 7 October 8 October 8 October 14 London London Society of Architects Ontario Professional Planners Institute Gala Niagara Dinner Falls University of Waterloo - Paths to Practice ORSA Society Visit OBOA Conference North Bay Society Visit Northern Ontario Society Visit Algoma Society Visit Waterloo Ottawa Huntsville North Bay Sudbury Sault Ste. Marie G Doyle L Cooke D Craddock K Doyle G Doyle G Doyle L Cooke D Craddock S Sharp G Doyle J Farrow P Fiett V Popovic G Doyle K Doyle G Doyle S Sharp K Doyle G Doyle S Sharp K Doyle G Doyle B Green K Doyle G Doyle L Cooke D Craddock K Doyle Executive Committee Windsor October 15 Windsor Society Visit October 19 Executive Committee Conference Call Toronto October 20 Judging at the Design Exchange Toronto G Doyle G Doyle Winnipeg October RAIC Roundtable K Doyle November 3 Canstruct Jury Awards Toronto G Doyle Toronto G Doyle J Burgess S O'Reilly D Craddock V Popovic November 4 Strategic Opportunities Committee November 5 OAA Council Meeting Toronto Council November 5 Ryerson Awards Ceremony Toronto G Doyle P Hastings

49 November 10 Grand Valley Society of Architects Visit Cambridge November 17 November 19 Presentation to students at Carleton University Sustainable Built Environments Cttee Meeting Ottawa Toronto G Doyle B Birdsell K Doyle G Doyle P Fiett V Popovic K Doyle SBEC Committee November 21 Ontario Society of Professional Engineers Awards Gala Toronto G Doyle November 24 (tentative) Meeting with Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry Ottawa G Doyle November 26 Executive Committee Conference Call Toronto Executive Committee December 10 Council Meeting Toronto Council December 10 Seasonal Celebration Dinner Toronto Council

50 5.1.b

51 Memorandum FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 5.1.b To: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser From: Gerrie Doyle, President Chair of the International Relations Committee Date: October 24, 2009 Subject: Report from CALA International Relations Committee Objective: To provide Council with an update regarding the activities of the International Relations Committee (IRC). Background: 1. The attached report was distributed to the recent meeting of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) with respect to the activities of the IRC. I suggest that the material is self-explanatory. 2. Of particular note is the report on the recent meeting between the IRC and the US National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and the discussion that has begun relative to updating the Canada/US Inter-recognition Agreement. Note the three specific questions that were asked of the members of CALA as a result of the NCARB meeting. 1. Does CALA wish to continue having the ARE offered in Canada over the longer term? 2. Does CALA have any desire to have the Canadian content that currently exists in the ARE maintained? (NCARB would prefer not to for financial reasons) 3. Finally, if the Canadian content were eliminated would Canadian jurisdictions continue to accept it as an alternative to the examination requirement for licensure? Now, and/or in the future? 3. Given that all jurisdictions currently continue to recognize the ARE as an option for meeting the examination requirement for licensure, the CALA table agreed that the status quo be maintained with respect to the Canadian content that currently exists in the ARE, also that the ARE continue to be offered at test centres in Canada. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

52 2 4. In addition to the attached materials it was also reported to the CALA meeting that delegates from IRC would travel to Mexico in response to an invitation from the Mexicans to attend the upcoming Presidents reception where an informal meeting between Canada (IRC-CALA + RAIC), the US (NCARB) and Mexico could be facilitated with respect to a pending Tri- National Agreement. Andre Bourassa, President of the OAQ, Charlie Henley, designated IRC representative on this file and Gerrie Doyle IRC chair all members of the IRC will attend the meeting and air fare costs will be covered by the existing IRC budget as well as the PEMD grant monies secured by the RAIC for international relations files. The Mexicans are covering all accommodation costs. 5. Members of the Council are encouraged to review the updated IRC matrix attached to this memo which shows the current status of all files under the auspices of the IRC. Action: For information only. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

53 Memorandum To: From: Members of CALA International Relations Committee Gerrie Doyle, Chair OAA Pierre Gallant, AIBC Charlie Henley, NLAA Dave Edwards, SAA Andre Bourassa, OAQ Daryl Procinsky, AAA Christopher Filipowicz, AAA Date: October 13, 2009 Subject: Report from International Relations Committee (IRC) NCARB/IRC Meeting Attached for information is a copy of the agenda for the meeting that occurred between the IRC and the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) in Montreal on September 19, As you are aware, one of the key mandates of the IRC as defined by CALA is to meet with NCARB to discuss the status of the Canada/US Inter-recognition agreement. Also attached is a copy of the draft notes from this meeting which provides a good account of the results of that meeting. As a result of that meeting, a letter has been sent to NCARB (a copy was sent previously to all provinces/territories for information) to confirm that CALA is the successor organization to CCAC. In addition, the members of IRC agreed to bring forward to CALA for further discussion and ultimately a decision, the following three items: 1. Does CALA wish to continue having the ARE offered in Canada over the longer term? 2. Does CALA have any desire to have the Canadian content that currently exists in the ARE maintained? (NCARB would prefer not to for financial reasons) 3. Finally, if the Canadian content were eliminated would Canadian jurisdictions continue to accept it as an alternative to the examination requirement for licensure? Now, and/or in the future? Action: CALA to discuss and make recommendations re. the above noted items. For information, the members of the IRC also met on their own on September 18 th in Montreal to discuss final strategy for the meeting with NCARB the following day. The afternoon of the 18 th was devoted to discussing the other IRC files see below. The next meeting between IRC and NCARB has been scheduled for April Update on other IRC Files Since the last meeting of CALA in June, the IRC met on two occasions. The main purpose of these meetings was to prepare for the meeting with NCARB in September as well as review all international relations files. As a result a matrix of the files that are under the purview of the IRC has been established (copy attached). 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

54 2 The matrix lists each file and the designated Committee lead for each of the files, who is responsible for gathering information on the current status of the file(s) and possible connection with other national files e.g. BEFA or national Competency, etc. The IRC is continuing to gather information on the status of a number of these files and will be prepared to make some recommendations to the CALA as to priority of files, next steps, strategy, etc. Also attached for information is a copy of a second matrix that has been created as a resource for the IRC in terms of the licensing/practice requirements in each Canadian jurisdiction. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

55 Meeting between CALA - International Relations Committee and NCARB Saturday September 19, 2009 Montreal, Quebec Agenda 1.0 Approval of Agenda 2.0 Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) Status 2.1 Scope of Responsibilities Clarification re. roles, responsibilities and funding 2.2 National Certification Mechanism via CALA for certification of credentials for Trinational exchange. 2.3 National/Provincial Recognition TILMA Affect on Canada as a whole Other Canadian Government mandates 3.0 Inter-recognition Agreement between USA and Canada 3.1 Quality and Maintenance of Licensing Processes in each jurisdiction 3.2 Mandatory Continuing Education Program 3.3 Internship Issues IAP and IDP 2.0 Canadian response to IDP Discussion around future changes to Internship 3.4 Education CACB and NAAB 2009 Conditions CACB response to NAAB 2009 Conditions 3.5 Examination ExAC in Canada Status across Canada Quebec Eligibility Transfers Quebec administration of the ARE 3.6 Agreements and Alternatives 4.0 Tri-National Status Future meeting / Agreement NCARB Status Canadian Status Mexican Status 5.0 International Recognition of Professionals BEFA Status - Canada NCARB Status Canadian Status 6.0 Future Meetings

56 Meeting between The International Relations Committee on behalf of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities and the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Saturday September 19, 2009 Montreal, Quebec Meeting Notes Attendance: National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) Andy Prescott, President Ken Naylor, 1 st Vice President/President Elect Lenore Lucey, Executive Vice President Stephen Nutt, Vice President, Programs International Relations Committee on behalf of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities Gerrie Doyle, OAA President - Chair Pierre Gallant, AIBC, President Andre Bourassa, President, OAQ Dave Edwards, SAA Kristi Doyle, Director of Policy, OAA Jean Pierre Dumont, Secretaire de l Ordre et Attache l affares Jerome Marburg, Director of Registration & Licensing, AIBC 1.0 Introductions All present at the meeting took a moment to formally introduce themselves to the other meeting participants. During the course of the introductions NCARB representatives posed some questions regarding the setup and structure of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Board (CACB) as well as the number of schools of architecture in Canada. IRC representatives explained that the CACB was established a number of years ago by the members of CALA as well as the Council of Canadian University Schools of Architecture to provide accreditation to the schools of architecture in Canada as well as certify the architectural degrees held by individuals who were seeking licensure in any jurisdictions in Canada. This includes both domestic and foreign trained applicants. It was confirmed that there are currently 10 accredited schools of architecture in Canada, one institution currently holding candidacy status i.e. very close to accreditation, as well as the development of possibly two new schools of architecture currently underway: one in Ontario and one in Saskatchewan. 2.0 Agenda Review and Discussion re. Objectives and Outcomes for the meeting Chair, G. Doyle opened the meeting requesting an open discussion of the goals and objectives for the meeting. NCARB President Andy Prescott explained that their ultimate objective is to reach a resolution to the issues which currently exist around the Canada/US Inter-recognition Agreement. In reaching this goal, the Immediate objectives are to understand the current status of what is now called CALA among the licensing jurisdictions in Canada, to understand and discuss the new Canadian licensing examination and its delivery in Canada and to make a determination as to whether the US Intern Development Program (IDP) and the Canadian Intern Architect Program (IAP) remain essentially equivalent.

57 With respect to the IDP and the IAP it was agreed early on in the discussion that there is little question about the status of each jurisdiction s accredited Schools of Architecture in terms of them being essentially equivalent. During this initial discussion there was some suggestion that perhaps the resolution to the issues around the Inter-recognition agreement could be resolved through the completion of a Tri-National agreement (between US/Canada/Mexico). With these initial comments on the table all agreed that the key purpose of the meeting was to re-establish the dialogue between NCARB and CALA and that it was unlikely that any final decisions would be reached during the day s meeting. 2.0 Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) Status Chair, G. Doyle explained that CALA represents a model/process for dealing with issues that are of mutual interest and concern to the architectural regulators across the country. Each regulatory body (10 provinces and one territory) are represented at the CALA table by the President and or their designate, with support from the senior administrators of each organization. The overarching principle is a process which will allow for issues to be dealt with to the satisfaction of each province/territory, however leaving the option open for a province/territory, at its choice, to opt out of any decision or direction. The CALA have also established various Committees under their purview with their own individual terms of reference, one being the IRC. These committees have been mandated to deal with issues on behalf of the CALA and are given direction from CALA re. proposed national positions, strategy, decisions. Keep in mind that any decisions, agreements, etc. made by a committee on behalf of CALA or by the CALA itself are not binding on an individual regulator unless that regulator agree/ratify via their own Council decision making process. Funding is dealt with on a project basis, and varies based on jurisdictions that are involved directly in the file, and/or on a per capita funding model. CALA is committed to a renewed level of cooperation and solidarity, however little has actually changed with respect to how the provinces/territory have come together other than there is no paid infrastructure for CALA at this time. Other members of the IRC characterized CALA as being a group of consent vs. consensus. It was also clarified for NCARB representatives that the IRC/CALA continues to work in cooperation with the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada on international files where there is overlap in terms of advocacy/trade matters. The Chair provide a brief overview of how the IRC interfaces with the rest of CALA and what the IRC mandate is in terms of speaking with other jurisdictions i.e. IRC brings forward the positions of CALA and then takes back to the CALA table issues for discussion/decisions, however IRC does not speak for each regulator and as before any positions/agreements must be ratified by each individual jurisdiction. Again, this has not changed over time. It was confirmed that the members of CALA continue to honor the existing Inter-recognition Agreement notwithstanding the change in direction relative to the examination component.

58 NCARB representatives questioned as to whether the CALA has a Committee or Task Group mandated to deal specifically with the new Canadian Examination. It was confirmed that there is a formalized national committee that is comprised of regional representatives from the various CALA jurisdictions that has been mandated to deal with the ongoing administration and maintenance of the examination. NCARB representatives requested clarification as to who/what should be the official point of Contact for their organization with respect to Canadian issues on a going forward basis. The members of the IRC reported that the members of CALA have mandated the IRC to be the point of contact and dialogue between the US as well as any other jurisdiction outside Canada. It was clarified however that should NCARB administration have a specific matter relative to aspects of licensing in one of the CALA jurisdictions, they should continue to contact the administration of that specific jurisdiction directly. NCARB stressed that this is important to them as they are looking for consistency as well as corporate memory. There was a suggestion that the Committee of International Councils (CIC) as set out in the Inter-recognition agreement should also be reestablished. ACTION: It was agreed that at the present time the Chair of the IRC, G. Doyle or Director of Policy K. Doyle from the Ontario Association of Architects would serve as the direct point of contact for NCARB relative to the Inter-recognition agreement and surrounding issues. The members of CALA also committed to sending a letter as soon as possible to NCARB to clarify that CALA is the successor to CCAC which would help to clarify the transition to the entire NCARB Board of Directors. Both NCARB and IRC indicated their commitment to work to renew the Canada/US Interrecognition agreement. 3.0 Review of initiatives relative to licensing of foreign trained professionals and government initiatives IRC representatives spoke about specific Canadian and provincial/territory government initiatives relative to labour mobility across the country as well as licensing of foreign trained professionals. It was noted that the various governments are very committed to both initiatives and have already implemented a number of mobility agreements in various jurisdictions. It was clarified that the Canadian reciprocity agreement continues to be in place which has recently been updated to respect the principles of the federal government s Agreement on Internal Trade i.e. once licensed in a jurisdiction in Canada, movement across Canada is virtually unrestricted. This extends to all professions, not just architecture. Marburg reported briefly on the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) between BC and Alberta governments. Under TILMA, Alberta and British Columbia agreed to reconcile or mutually recognize occupational standards for those occupations regulated in both provinces where the scope of practice was similar. Dumont noted that in Ontario and Quebec a bilateral agreement has also been signed between the two provinces that is very similar to the TILMA Agreement and also aligns with the Canadian Agreement on Internal Trade i.e. Complete recognition between jurisdictions of licensed professionals, only exception is that this does not override any language requirements, social policy measure, (labour standards or codes, min. wages, etc).

59 Given existing reciprocity agreements, individuals in either jurisdiction licensed via TILMA can also move to other provinces. It was noted that this really exists anyways, regardless of TILMA due to the Canadian Architectural reciprocity agreement. Bourassa and Dumont provided an overview of the bilateral agreement that was recently signed between the Quebec government and the government of France. NCARB representatives were somewhat surprised at this given that it had been their understanding that the European Union did not allow individual jurisdictions to enter into agreements with other countries. When asked about the US federal governments involvement in similar initiatives i.e. foreign trained professionals and professional trade agreements, Lucey noted that the government really does not get involved in these matters and for the most part leaves professional licensing to the respective authorities i.e. NCARB. It was noted that the bigger issue for NCARB right now is intra-state reciprocity between State Boards. Lucey also reminded that NCARB is not permitted to lobby the federal government and that the function of lobbying is left solely to the American Institute of Architects. 4.0 Discussion re. Broadly Experienced Foreign Architect (BEFA) and Broadly Experienced Architect (BEA) When asked about the status of the NCARB Broadly Experienced Foreign Architect (BEFA) program, Nutt confirmed that only 5 individuals have been licensed since its inception with a total of approximately 12 applications in total. It was stressed that the NCARB blue cover that is granted to an individual does not guarantee license in a particular state and that only about 20 states actually accept the blue cover without question or further review. Marburg and Gallant took a moment to explain the AIBC s Broadly Experienced Architect (BEA) process noting that individuals are processed via this process each year. In summary, the AIBC BEA is essentially based on 15 years of experience along with support from architects who are knowledgeable of their experience. The discussion moved into the notion of an experience equalizer i.e. how experience can be used to compensate for existing licence requirements under the IAP/IDP. There was reference again to the concepts of the original draft Tri-National agreement which was based on a 7 to 10 year equalizer given that the Mexican system is very much different than that in North America. 5.0 Discussion re. status of Tri-National Agreement The group discussed again the notion of their being just one agreement that included all three countries, however Lucey indicated that she had had some communication with the Mexicans recently who are suggesting that the file should be reevaluated. It was noted that many of the parties around the table have in fact moved on, and that a new group might be wise to start over. There was some concern expressed however that this may slow down the process of renewing the existing agreement between IRC/CALA and NCARB and there was general agreement that the immediate focus should be on maintaining our mutual recognition agreement. It was pointed out however that we need to ensure that we are perceived as continuing discussions with Mexico given their very strong focus on NAFTA. 6.0 Discussion re. Changes to the Canadian Intern Architect Program and the NCARB Intern Development Program.

60 Both IRC and NCARB representatives acknowledged that there are changes underway to both the Canadian Intern Architect Program as well as the NCARB Intern Development Program. It was agreed that the existing inter-recognition agreement is based on the very similar licensing programs and processes; however changes are being made which in NCARB s mind creates a considerable divergence which needs to be addressed. There was some discussion around the three elements on which the Inter-recognition agreement is based i.e. education which is was agreed is for the most part the same in both jurisdictions; examination which was originally based on the ARE, however now Canadian exam has been introduced; and, experience both NCARB and CALA are contemplating changes. A copy of the NCARB Intern Development Program 2.0 is attached for information. IRC representatives suggested that another way to view this is to agree that yes there are differences in the programs, however that they must be viewed as a complete package which essentially results in the same product at the end of the process i.e. a competent and professional individual that is eligible for licensure in either country. NCARB suggested that their Board would like to see some kind of comparison or analysis done to compare the individual elements of each of their respective programs. At this point, the discussion turned specifically to the new Examination for Architecture in Canada (ExAC) for licensure and again NCARB indicated that their member Boards are very sensitive to this issue, in particular ensuring that applicants have written the ARE. The IRC members provided an outline of the examination, with specific emphasis being on the fact that it is a competency/practice based examination and does not retest the information that is covered and examined in University. It was further explained that because all schools of architecture in Canada are accredited the profession does not need to concern itself with retesting that material, there is a level of assurance that it has already been done. The ExAC is based on the skills, knowledge and experience gained during the Internship process. IRC noted however that at the present time, all Canadian licensing jurisdictions, with the exception of Quebec, are accepting both the ExAC and the ARE as fulfilling the examination requirement for licensure. NCARB representatives requested some clarification as to why the ARE would no longer be administered and accepted in Quebec. Bourassa and Dumont explained that is was provincial legislation that prohibits it from administering and accepting an examination in Quebec that is not available in its official language. NCARB asked specifically if it was the direction of CALA to continue having the ARE offered in Canada over the longer term, and whether there was a desire to have the Canadian content maintained. It was recalled that as a result of the agreement for Canada to use the American licensing examination; an agreement had been reached that would see the inclusion of Canadian content into the ARE examination. NCARB representatives indicated that they had no direct reason to maintain the Canadian content in the ARE and requested that IRC seek clarification from the members of CALA as to whether there would be objection to transitioning out the Canadian content. As a secondary question, if the Canadian content were eliminated would Canadian jurisdictions still accept it as an alternative to the examination requirement for licensure? NCARB openly stated that they would prefer to drop the Canadian content. ACTION: IRC agreed to take these two questions to the members of CALA for comment and direction/decision.

61 On the matter of comparing the elements of each countries internship process it was suggested that a task group may need to be established to work through a practice analysis and to determine if gaps exist. NCARB expressed some concern as to the longevity of the ExAC and what would occur if CALA decided it could no longer administer and maintain the Canadian Exam. IRC members explained the commitment made to the Canadian exam by the members of CALA and how the process has been formalized by an agreement between the Canadian jurisdictions. 7.0 Inter-recognition Agreement between USA and Canada direct discussion Again it was stressed by IRC representatives that the focus really needs to be on the end product and not necessarily the individual elements of each program. It was suggested that given our regulatory mandates to protect the public interest, each jurisdiction needs assurance and comfort that they are providing licenses to individuals (regardless of what country they are from) that are indeed qualified and competent. The agreement between the two countries must both protect the public safety and also allow for free flow of trade between countries. All agreed that the ultimate goal is mutual recognition of each others licensing process, both of which should be considered rigorous as well as credible and fair. At this point however it is unlikely that the NCARB member boards will accept the new Canadian examination outright. Specific concern was expressed with respect to the fact that the ExAC does not include a graphic/design component which they feel very strongly about in order to test health, safety and welfare matters in the US. Both groups talked at this point about their pending changes to their internships programs, which NCARB characterized as talking the two jurisdictions further apart, thus requiring a renegotiation of the Inter-recognition agreement. It was suggested that each program be analyzed (recognizing again that the education element was of little concern at this point in terms of mutual recognition) and that the differences be identified as well as the significance of those. NCARB noted that as part of their initiative to make incremental changes to the Internship process through IDP 2.0, they are/have conducted a full review of all three elements i.e education, experience, and examination. Their focus of course has been on experience more recently. NCARB explained that their position is that experience must be closely linked to their Practice Analysis. Changes already made or that are imminent include online submission of experience, establishment of a 6 month rule for reporting experience, experience units have been changed to hours, direct supervision of the intern has been changed to responsible control (which allows for remote supervision), registration of the intern supervisor can be anywhere in the States or located internationally (not necessarily the home jurisdiction), 7 categories of experience have been condensed to 3 and finally the allowance for experience from outside of the country. NCARB noted that these changes are a result of their recent practice analysis and are intended to bring the program in line with current realities of practice and global conditions. The members of IRC noted that the changes to the IAP being contemplated in Canada centre around the number of hours of experience required, and the elimination of the elements of

62 discretionary experience. For example the three years of experience may be reduced to two years. In addition, all experience would need to be gained post-graduation. The group spoke generally about the existing inter-recognition agreement being replaced by a very simple agreement that was based on direct mutual recognition of each other s respective internship program; however with a years of practice equalizer put in place. For example, those that apply for licence in the US from Canada might have to demonstrate an agreed to number of years of experience in their home jurisdiction and vice versa. There was a request from an NCARB representative to forward the proposed CALA changes, when appropriate to their IDP Committee, which they noted does include a Canadian representative, Stuart Howard from BC. On the issued of the move to global experience, NCARB noted that there is a push from the UIA to recognize global experience, specifically why penalize individual interns who wish to broaden their experience and knowledge by gaining experience in a foreign jurisdiction. It was noted that this is an opportune time for most to travel. Marburg took a moment to explain work also being done by CALA regarding the establishment of a national competency standard for architecture, noting that the various competencies were drawn specifically from the learning and testing objectives of the ExAC which all Canadian jurisdictions supported and approved. In turn these learning objectives are closely linked to the Canadian Handbook of Practice. 8.0 NAAB 2009 Conditions CACB response to NAAB 2009 Conditions Edwards reported that the CACB is currently reviewing the NAAB 2009 Conditions and will report to CALA in October. NCARB referred to their submission to NAAB regarding the 2008 Conditions and Procedures document and stressed that they do have some considerable concern. 9.0 Quick review of other International files Tri-National Agreement IRC representatives noted that it had been the position of CALA that discussions are postponed until after CALA completes the development of its BEFA process which is based on the NCARB BEFA process. NCARB reiterated comments made recently by Mexico that they were not in a rush to complete the existing project and in fact may wish to start over. Action: It was agreed that Prescott would engage in conversation on this matter in November when in Mexico for the FCARM annual conference. CALA would suggest that RAIC President Randy Dhar do the same since he would also be attending the same event. Action: NCARB suggested however that CALA also send a letter to FCARM to explain the transition from CCAC to CALA. ACE Accord NCARB reported that their discussions with ACE have been stalled since the US cannot provide a guarantee to ACE that an individual from the EU would be licensed in any US jurisdiction they

63 choose to pursue. It was suggested that this would be the same situation for CALA i.e. CALA cannot give an absolute guarantee since it is the individual licensing authorities that grant licensure. NCARB also reiterated earlier statements that it is their understanding that only the EU can enter into an agreement, and that ACE is not a binding authority. Action: G. Doyle indicated that she would make contact with the Architect Registration Board in the UK as well as Foreign Affairs in an attempt to gain some clarity around this matter. Action: Bourassa indicated that he would make a similar attempt with officials in France and Lucey would contact her counterpart in Germany. APEC Architect Project NCARB reported that they continue to support and fund the secretariat for the APEC Architect Project so that they can continue to be at the table, however noted that further development of this file is not a priority for them. IRC explained that currently RAIC have been involved in this initiative however are pressing the regulators/cala to assume this file given that discussions seem to have shifted to mutual recognition of individuals as opposed to matter of trade. Refer to the attached budget sheet re. cost of funding the APEC secretariat Future Meeting It was agreed that the group would meet again in Washington on April 23/24, 2010.

64

65

66

67

68 Architects Economy Original Proposal PPP Ranking Points Adopted Mexico 10,000 Australia $ 3, $ 3,464 $ 2,717 8,000 Canada $ 5, $ 4,330 $ 3,396 16,000 China $ 1, $ 3,464 $ 2,717 2,366 Hong Kong China $ 5, $ 3,464 $ 2,717 50,000 Japan $ 5, $ 5,196 $ 4,075 16,000 Korea $ 3, $ 4,330 $ 3,396 1,600 Malaysia $ 1, $ 1,732 $ 1,358 7,590 Mexico $ 1, $ 2,598 $ 2,038 1,550 New Zealand $ 3, $ 2,598 $ 2,038 8,000 Philippines $ 1, $ 2,598 $ 2,038 1,300 Singapore $ 3, $ 2,598 $ 2,038 3,200 Chinese Taipei $ 3, $ 2,598 $ 2,038 2,000 Thailand $ 1, $ 1,732 $ 1, ,000 United States $ 5, $ 5,196 $ 4, ,606 $ 45, $ 45,900 $ 36,000 Architects Based on the number provided by the economies at the APEC meeting in Vancouver. Korea has submitted a reduced number of Architects that has not been factored into this spreadsheet. PPP Based on the three World Bank Purchasing Power Parity categories. The numbers were inverted for the formula. For example the U.S. PPP = 1, for the formula was assigned a value of 3. PPP = 2, for the formula remained a value of 2. Mexico PPP = 3, for the formula was assigned a value of 1. Ranking For simplicity, the Economies were also grouped into 3 categories by the number of Architects. over 16,000 = 3 3,201-15,999 = 2 less than 3,200 = 1 Economy Points PPP + Ranking Adopted Funding $45,900 divided by total number of points multiplied by Economy total points. (G16 / F16 * F-points) Mexico Funding $36,000 divided by total number of points multiplied by Economy total points. (H16 / F16 * F-points) Final APEC Funding Proposal

69 PORTABILITY OF INTERNSHIP / TRAINING / PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE UIA PPC New Delhi, India September 2009 BACKGROUND An open invitation was extended to all UIA Member Sections to discuss the importance of the portability of internship on December 10, 2008 at the International Union of Architects (UIA) Professional Practice Commission (PPC) in Marrakech. Fourteen individuals representing 13 countries attended the meeting. The U.S. was represented by both the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). NCARB was the only regulatory body at the table. The current UIA Guidelines on internship were drafted in 1998 and accepted in Little international effort in support of the development of the world s future Architects has taken place since that original body of work was completed. The objective of the Internship Roundtable in Marrakech was to produce a draft statement that would provide for practical experience gained by a graduate in a foreign jurisdiction to be recognized for the purpose of registration in the graduate s domestic jurisdiction. (Attachment A) Many young professionals are involved in cross-border, multi-cultural internships early in their careers. In many instances, these internships are not recognized by the licensing authorities when the intern returns to his/her home jurisdiction. Experience gained abroad is becoming more and more valuable with the continuing globalization of the profession, yet represents a significant obstacle for most interns. The PPC advocates that international experience should be encouraged without penalty. NCARBInternDevelopment Program ( For many years, the United States has recognized 235 training units (approximately 1 year) of an intern s experience in support of the 700 training unit (approximately 3 years) requirement prior to licensure. The Intern Development Program (IDP) has gone through significant review and renovation over the past two years in an effort to better align the expectations and requirements of internship with the knowledge and skills identified by NCARB s 2007 Practice Analysis of Architecture used to determine the body of knowledge necessary to practice architecture independently. The requirements of the new version of the program, identified as IDP 2.0, will be phased in over the next 18 months. During this review, the architects serving on the Committee on the Intern Development Program concluded that the internship experience is about developing competencies in the broad scope of the practice of architecture and is not jurisdictional in nature. Jurisdictional regulations and codes must be met no matter where the project is located. Therefore, in support of interns, NCARB further clarified its regulations to recognize the full 700 training units for those interns working in a foreign setting under the direct supervision of an architect licensed in a U.S. jurisdiction. (At this time, interns working in a foreign setting under the direct supervision of a foreign architect are still limited to 235 training units.)

70 The U.S. and CANADA Due to the unique relationship of the United States and Canada established by the 1994 Interrecognition Agreement between NCARB and CCAC (Committee of Canadian Architectural Councils), the U.S. IDP and the Canadian Intern Architect Program (IAP) are considered equivalent for the satisfaction of each country s entire training requirement. The success of this relationship also allows for the recognition of experience gained under the direct supervision of an architect licensed in a Canadian jurisdiction as equivalent to the experience gained under the direct supervision of an architect licensed in a U.S. jurisdiction. SUMMARYand NEXTSTEPS As the practice of architecture continues to cross jurisdictional boundaries, it is important to remember those in their formative years completing internships across the globe. Interns working in a foreign employment setting should be recognized for their contribution, not penalized. NCARB strongly encourages other countries to adopt similar regulations that accept foreign internships as legitimate and valuable experience. With the support of the UIA PPC and the renewed effort from the Marrakech meeting, member sections of the UIA are encouraged to review and revise their policies and licensing regulations in support of practical work experience acquired abroad. In order to organize and achieve this common goal, the PPC might consider: 1. Identification of participants for a new UIA PPC Internship Panel 2. Compilation and analysis of the training requirements leading to licensure in all UIA Member Sections 3. Adoption of a mandatory supervised training program prior to licensure for those Member Sections that do not currently have a training requirement 4. Common role delineation of IDP Mentor and IDP Supervisor 5. Common definition of terms such as Direct Supervision* 6. Common identification of acceptable work settings (Attachment B) 7. Establishment of a common standard for the duration of the required training period 8. Development (aspirational) of a process to define substantial equivalence of existing Member Section training requirements (Attachment C) * NCARB definition: Direct Supervision of interns shall occur either through personal contact or through a mix of personal contact and remote communication (e.g. , on-line markups, webinars, internet) such that the IDP supervisor has control over the work of the intern and has sufficient professional knowledge of the supervised work so that the IDP supervisor can determine that the intern understands and is performing his or her work experience within the professional standard of care. Respectfully submitted: Stephen Nutt, NCARB, AIA Vice President, Programs National Council of Architectural Registration Boards United States

71 ATTACHMENTA 03 September 2009 INTERNSHIP ROUNDTABLE RECOMMENDED PPC STATEMENT on the PORTABILITYOF INTERNSHIP/TRAINING/PRACTICALEXPERIENCE 10 December 2008 Whereas architectural graduates/interns increasingly are gaining practical work experience in foreign countries, and Whereas practical work experience is an essential component in the development of future Architects capable of providing communities with competent architectural services, and In recognition of the increasing importance of cross-border practical work experience, the UIA PPC strongly recommends that; Member Sections, utilizing the attached Guideline and Appendix, encourage their regulatory authorities to; 1. Adopt unilateral policies, leading to registration that recognize practical work experience gained in a foreign jurisdiction; 2. Where possible develop cross-border MRAs Policies and Agreements based on these documents will provide recognition of appropriate practical work experience achieved in foreign jurisdictions while ensuring the protection of the public interest. (The PPC intends to monitor, review, and advise on the development of unilateral arrangements and MRAs relating to the portability of practical work experience.)

72

73

74 File Committee Lead(s) Canada/US Inter recognition agreement Charlie Henley Dave Edwards CALA -- INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE INTERNATIONAL FILES Type of Organization Interaction/Relevance to Committee files Status and Comments NCARB is a non profit federation of architectural licensing boards in the United States. It represents 55 architectural licensing authorities. CALA represents the group of 11 Canadian architectural licensing authorities NCARB operates on a majority voting model by its members. That is motions to accept MRA s are debated and voted on at AGM. While voting may pass a motion, each of the 55 authorities must pass it to enable practice in each jurisdiction. For example, Mexico or the European Union are federalist bodies that enact federal laws of architectural licensing as opposed to provincial or state laws. The individual provinces authorities or Collegios of Mexico or individual countries and states of EU administer the federal law prescriptively or unanimously. The fundamentals of the agreement are based on items 2 Education, 3 Experience and 4 Examination, of Appendix C. Current status is the agreement is defacto in default, on a go forward basis, relative to the Canadian adoption of ExAC, as the agreement references the NCARB ARE as the only valid examination. Education and Experience are very similar or have the same requirement. However both jurisdictions have made, or are considering changes to their Intern experience requirements. There have been many subtle changes in the requirements and language of the agreement over its life. Canada wishes the language of the agreement changed to reflect current status. Canada wishes NCARB to accept our current education, experience and examination process as being a valid and acceptable alternate to the NCARB system. Recognition that we may never reach full agreement as NCARB cannot bind all of the 54 states.

75 File Committee Lead(s) Type of Organization Relevance to Committee files Tri National Agreement NCARB/CALA FCARM Dave Edwards NCARB is a non profit federation of architectural licensing boards in the United States. It represents 55 architectural licensing authorities. CALA represents the group of 11 Canadian architectural licensing authorities. Interrecognition agreement and perhaps other MRA s FCARM stands for Federacion des Colegios de Arquitectos de la republica Mexicana or in English Federation of Colleges of Architects of the Mexican Republic. In Mexico there are professional societies (in each state or sometimes in large city such as Mexico City they are half regulatory and half professional. They have codes of conduct but admission to the profession is by the federal state department of education. Architect s Council of Europe (ACE Accord) Gerrie Doyle Andre Bourassa Membership consists of Member Organisations, which are the nationally representative regulatory and professional bodies of all European Union (EU) Member States, Accession States, Switzerland and Norway Principal function of the ACE is to monitor developments at EU level, seeking to influence those areas of EU Policy and legislation that have an impact on architectural practice and on the overall quality and sustainability of the built environment. May be impacted by Quebec France agreement could get CALA to review/agree to principles of this and have this form basis of ACE MRA. We will work with RAIC to set up a meeting in the near future. Status and Comments NCARB has suggested that FCARM is looking to start over on this file. During NCARB meeting is was agreed that the priority is to deal with the Inter recognition agreement first. Agreed that NCARB would determine the level of urgency on this file with FCARM. ACE Accord signed in 05 agreement to discuss and establish an MRA was signed by RAIC/CCAC/ACE. Historically, we were never able to get criteria from ACE because there are many variations in EU re. requirements for licensing, registration etc. Members of ACE are not on equal footing. ACE principles similar to what PQ signed with France so this could be the only common denominator. ACE agreement similar to ours was also signed with NCARB, but requires considerable more negotiation i.e. seems that they want guarantee that every state will adhere to the agreement and NCARB cannot do that. May or may not be able to move forward on this with the US if not, CALA will move forward regardless. Discuss with RAIC setting up a meeting with ACE. Andre will speak to France Government to consider an agreement with CANADA/France as opposed to full ACE?

76 File Committee Lead(s) Asia/Pacific Economic Cooperation Pierre Gallant Jerome Marburg APEC Chris Filopowicz CANBERRA Accord Dave Edwards Kristi Doyle Union Internationale des Architectes Gerrie Doyle Kristi Doyle UIA Type of Organization Relevance to Committee files Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is an international forum composed of twenty one member economies that have undertaken to act collectively to promote economic and technical cooperation within the Asia Pacific region. The APEC Architect project is an initiative of the APEC Human Resources Development Working Group (HRDWG), The project was endorsed by the HRDWG at its year 2000 meeting in Brunei as a direct response to the Group s strategic priority of facilitating mobility of qualified persons by developing a means for the mutual recognition of skills and qualifications. The Canberra Accord is a document by seven accreditation/validation agencies in architectural education. The Canberra Accord is intended to facilitate the portability of educational credentials between the countries whose accreditation/validation agencies signed the Accord. It does not address matters related to professional registration or licensure. Relevance to APEC file? The UIA is a federation of national professional organisations called Member Sections. In representing the world community of architects and promoting their activities, the UIA works in co operation with high ranking organisations around the world. RAIC is a member of the UIA on behalf of Canadian architectural profession. Status and Comments Phones calls/e mails to get more details. Recognize that there is more relevance to the West Coast architects? Jerome and Pierre will prepare information for IRC/CALA consideration re. taking over the responsibility for this file. CALA will have to appoint members to the Monitoring Committee and eventually fund it i.e. approx. $4,400/yr. Would have to be assumed in CALA budget. NCARB does not see this as a priority file, however continues to support it so that they can be at the table. Agree Education issue not licensing issue. Requested CACB to bring a report to CALA meeting in October. Recognize that this is mainly an advocacy group and will continue to support RAIC involvement. G. Doyle to discuss further with RAIC

77 File Committee Lead(s) Quebec/France Bi lateral Agreement André Bourassa Jean Pierre Dumont Type of Organization Relevance to Committee files Bi lateral agreement is between the Quebec Provincial Government and the Government of France. Status and Comments Individuals must have studied in a Quebec School of Architecture in order to be eligible for licence in France. Three years of practical experience is required for individuals from France to make up deficiency in architectural degree programs between two jurisdictions. Note that individuals from France licensed in Quebec can move freely across Canada per Canadian Reciprocity Agreement.

78 Provincial/Territory Licensing Requirements Association Oral Examination Local Experience Requirements Practice Requirements OAQ No experience required for Canadian grads Registration 3720 hours international requirements OAA 940 hours & Admission Course Licence & Certificate of Practice AAA Yes 1800 hours Registration & Annual Certificate AIBC Yes 940 hours & Mandatory lectures Registration & Certificate of Practice; registration of practices SAA 1800 hours Registration & Licence to Practice Architecture MAA No local experience Certificate of Approval for arch. Corporations & joint A/E firms and corporations; others require registration of firm (arch partnership, groups of members, sole proprietors) NLAA No local experience Registration; Certificate of Approval (Partnerships & Corporations only however this will disappear Jan. 1 with new Act) NSAA No local experience Registration; Corporate Permit (Partnerships & Corporations) AANB 940 hours Registration & Certificate of Practice AAPEI 940 hours Registration & Certificate of Practice NWTAA 940 hours Registration & Certificate of Practice; Registration of firm and Permit to Practice NB: Registration and Licence are being used interchangeably (varies based on language used in each jurisdictions statute) Certificate or Approval/Certificate of Practice/Corporate Permit indicate additional request in order to offer services to the public

79 5.1.c

80 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 5.1.c Meeting of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities CALA Fort Garry Hotel, 222 Broadway Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba SA LON A October 22, 9:15 a.m. 4:30 p.m. Meeting will be Chaired by Manitoba Association of Architects President, Michael Cox. 1. Opening Remarks and Introductions 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Brief review of Notes from June 21, 2009 Meeting (see attached) 4. National Committee/Task Group -- Updates/Reports 4.1 CExAC Update (AAA, AANB, MAA, OAA, OAQ) a) adoption of revised Protocol Agreement (see attached - distributed via to CALA previously) 4.2 International Relations Committee (AAA, AIBC, OAA, OAQ, SAA) (tbd) a) report on meeting with NCARB re. Can/US Inter-recognition agreement b) report on status of all IRC files c) discussion re. budget for CACB Task Group OAQ, SAA, OAA, MAA, AAA (with the participation of Gordon Richards, Chair of CACB) a) CALA appointment to the Board for Fall 2009 (see attached distributed via to CALA previously) b) Review of Canadian Education Standard (individual Council positions, discussion re. adoption of revised standard as previously distributed via see attached) c) Presentation re. proposed National Competency Standard d) Review of CACB 2010 draft budget e) Report from CACB Chair, Gord Richards to CALA update on CANBERRA ACCORD, report on CACB statistics and operations.

81 12:00 NOON - BREAK FOR LUNCH. Annual General Meeting of the CACB will be conducted at this time (brief meeting to pass standard motions as distributed via to CALA by the Chair of the CACB. MAA President will act on behalf of CALA and vote accordingly) 4. National Committee/Task Group -- Updates/Reports (continued) 4.4 BEFA National Task Group (AIBC, NAA, OAA, OAQ) a) review of final report from Consultant and recommendations from National Task Group (tbd) 4.5 Intern Architect Program Task Group (AAA, AIBC, OAA, OAQ) b) review and discussion re. proposed changes to experience component of IAP (tbd) 4.6 Reciprocity Task Group (OAQ, AIBC, OAA, SAA) a) adoption of revised Canadian Reciprocity Agreement (final) (tbd) 5. Other Business 5.1 CALA discussion re. Committee/Task Group appointments: processes, length of term, representation of individuals (CALA vs..individual province/territory), etc. 5.2 CALA discussion re. ongoing maintenance of accounting, finances, coordination, etc. 6. Next Meeting

82 5.1.d

83 FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 5.1.d Memorandum To: From: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma Gerrie Doyle, President CACB Annual Report Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser Date: October 24, 2009 Subject: Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) Annual Report Objective: To provide Council with a copy of the CACB Annual Report. Background: 1. The attached CACB annual report was presented to the provincial/territorial regulators at the meeting of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) in Winnipeg on October 22, There to present the Report was CACB President Gord Richards and CACB Executive Director, Mourad Said. 2. In advance of the national meeting a memorandum was sent to the Chair of the National CACB Task Force (copy attached) to express some concerns that had been raised by our group of OAA Councillors that had been put together in the spring to review the proposed revised Canadian Education Standard. The attached Annual Report goes a long way to address the majority of the statistical questions that had been raised as well as concerns. This report will be an ongoing mechanism to keep all of the members of CALA informed. 3. I would like to suggest that the CACB file will continue to be monitored through the OAA s involvement on the National CACB Task Force as well as through our involvement at the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities table. 4. I also had the opportunity to meet and talk directly with the Executive Director of the CACB in Winnipeg who has offered to have CACB representatives attend a future meeting of OAA Council to provide a presentation on the specific operations of the CACB, etc. if so desired. He also encouraged me and any other local members of Council to visit the CACB offices in Ottawa to view operations first hand. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

84 2 5. I would also like to stress, as noted previously by the OAA s Director of Policy, that the Ontario Fairness Commissioner has reviewed the operations of CACB and has not expressed any concern, including the existing appeal process. Action: For information only. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

85 Canadian Architectural Certification Board Conseil canadien de certification en architecture CACB-CCCA Outline of most recent activities Report prepared for the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities(CALA) and the Canadian Council of University Schools of Architecture (CCUSA). October 22, 2009 Mourad Mohand-Said 10/14/2009 B.Arch, M.Sc.A

86 Table of Contents A- THE CANADIAN ARCHITECTURAL CERTIFICATION BOARD / LE CONSEIL CANADIEN DE CERTIFICATION EN ARCHITECTURE The CACB-CCCA Mandate... 3 Founding Members... 3 The Board of Directors... 4 B - CERTIFICATION PROGRAMME... 5 Certification of academic qualifications... 5 Modes of certification... 5 Accredited professional programme... 5 Professional programme not accredited by CACB... 5 Architects registered by a provincial association... 5 Satisfaction of the Canadian Education Standard through the RAIC Syllabus of Studies... 5 Re-assessment/Appeal... 6 The re-assessment... 6 The Appeal... 6 Statistics Highlights for Applications received... 7 Number of re-assessment... 7 Number of appeals... 7 Number of refused applications... 7 Country of origin of applicants... 7 Ongoing initiatives and enhancements... 8 Free and automatic certification... 8 Automatic Certification:... 8 Review of CACB Canadian Education Standard (CES) (ongoing)...8 Internet Technology (IT) Implementation... 8 C - ACCREDITATION PROGRAMME Cycle Cycle... 9 Ongoing initiatives in Accreditation... 9 Review of CACB-CCCA Conditions and Procedures for Accreditation... 9 D- INTERNATIONAL Canberra Accord CACB-CCCA s participation in the 2 nd General Meeting APPENDIXES: STATISTICAL REPORT/CERTIFICATION PROGRAMME

87 A- THE CANADIAN ARCHITECTURAL CERTIFICATION BOARD / LE CONSEIL CANADIEN DE CERTIFICATION EN ARCHITECTURE. The CACB-CCCA Mandate The Canadian Architectural Certification Board fulfills two separate but related mandates: Administer a program of accreditation of the Canadian schools of architecture in accordance with "Conditions and Procedures for Accreditation" approved by the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) and the Canadian Council of University Schools of Architecture (CCUSA) Administer a program of certification of the educational qualifications of individual applicants in accordance with the criteria contained within the "Canadian Education Standard" approved by the CALA Founding Members Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) Canadian Council of University Schools of Architecture (CCUSA) 3

88 The Board of Directors The CACB-CCCA Board has up to eleven members and consists of: Up to three registered architects representing the licensing authorities appointed by the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) Up to three architectural educators appointed by the Canadian Council of University Schools of Architecture (CCUSA) Up to three registered architects representing the practice and teaching of architecture appointed jointly by the CCUSA and the CALA Up to two students representing the Canadian Architecture Students Association (CASA) 4

89 B - CERTIFICATION PROGRAMME Certification of academic qualifications CACB-CCCA office receives applications for certification of academic qualifications from candidates who have a professional degree in architecture (in Canada and abroad) who plan to become licensed architects in Canada. The Assessment Committee meets in the CACB-CCCA office on a monthly basis to evaluate applications from graduates of programmes which are not accredited by CACB-CCCA or NAAB. Prior to bringing/submitting the applications to its members for review/evaluation, a detailed screening process is performed for each application to make sure that all the requirements are present. Candidates are informed by about any missing documents or about their non eligibility for the assessment process. In these cases, usually when applicants do not hold a professional degree, their applications and payment are returned back to them. Therefore, no application is actually refused by the Assessment Committee itself. Applicants are either granted full certification, provisional certification (in which case further studies in area 6: Knowledge of the Profession are needed), or asked to complete other courses in another specific area of studies in order to comply with the CES. Modes of certification There are four ways to satisfy the Canadian Education Standard for admission to provincial architectural associations in Canada: Accredited professional programme Professional programme in architecture accredited by the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB), or by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), or an accrediting body recognized by the Board. Professional programme not accredited by CACB Degree/diploma in architecture which is not accredited by the CACB or the NAAB can meet the Canadian Education Standard by obtaining CACB certification following a detailed evaluation of the individual's record. Architects registered by a provincial association Architects who were registered prior to July 1, 1976 by a provincial association, or by the Ordre des architectes du Québec prior to 1992, or whose education was certified by the Universities Coordinating Council in Alberta prior to 1992, are accepted as having equivalent education to satisfy the Canadian Education Standard. Satisfaction of the Canadian Education Standard through the RAIC Syllabus of Studies Applicants who have received a Diploma from the RAIC Syllabus of Studies Programme upon completion of requisite courses and guided studies, may obtain the CACB certification following a detailed evaluation of the individual's record. 5

90 Re-assessment/Appeal When applicants are in disagreement with the Assessment Committee decision, we explain to them the assessment process and we inform them that they have the possibility to request for one re-assessment of their application or appeal the Assessment Committee decision. The re-assessment It consists of a second review of the application by the Assessment Committee. Conditions: The candidate must submit within 30 days new evidence or new documentation which can sustain and/or clarify the deficiency initially found by the Assessment Committee. Procedures: Upon receipt of the new documentation, the file is brought to the next Assessment Committee Session (Assessment Committee members meet on monthly basis). Cost: Timeline: No cost. Up to one month (next assessment Committee). The Appeal It consists of providing within 60 days a formal request appealing the Assessment Committee s decision with the CACB/CCCA Board of Directors. Conditions: The candidate must submit a formal letter to the President of the Board outlining the reason(s) of the appeal with supporting documentation where appropriate. Procedures: Upon receipt of the official request for appeal, the file is brought for review to the next Board of Directors meeting (Board meetings are held twice a year). Cost: $200 Timeline: Minimum of six months to review. 6

91 Statistics Highlights for 2009 (Please, see appendixes, pages:2 8 & 11) Applications received For the period of January 1-September 30, 2009 a total of 402 applications were received by the CACB-CCCA office in the following proportions: Canadian accredited; 272 (67.7%) Canadian grandfathered; 2 (0.5%) Canadian not accredited; 1 (0.2%) International accredited: US applicants; 28 (7%) International Not Accredited (Internationally trained applicants):95 (23.6%) RAIC Syllabus; 4 (1%) Number of re-assessment 11 applications were brought to re-assessment with the following outcomes: 7: Certification 1: Provisional Certification 2: Further studies 1: Not eligible for evaluation Number of appeals No appeal recorded yet. Number of refused applications As it was explained above (see page 6), no application is refused or rejected by the Assessment Committee. Country of origin of applicants The top five countries of origin for all foreign graduate applicants received between 2007 and 2009 are: 1- Iran : The Philippines:27 and Egypt : India: China :20 5- Iraq: 13 The top five countries of origin for all foreign graduate applicants received in 2009 (Jan-Sep. 2009) are: 1- Iran : Egypt : India: 9 4- The Philippines:8 5- Algeria, Lebanon and Romania: 4 7

92 Ongoing initiatives and enhancements Free and automatic certification Since January 01, 2009 no certification fee is charged to all graduates of a professional programme in architecture of Canadian accredited schools of architecture as well as to all applicants under the "Grandfathering Right Clause". Automatic Certification: With the objective of encouraging and attracting the graduates of professional programs in architecture of Canadian accredited school of architecture to the realm of licensure (entry to the profession), the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) has mandated the CACB-CCCA to develop and implement a new procedure for certification (appendix p.9). This new initiative which involves free and automatic certification of graduates academic qualifications upon their graduation was enthusiastically welcomed by the schools as well as by the graduates. Since the end of the winter session, 272 graduates will be granted automatic certification. For the same period of time (Jan-Sep) we received in 2009, 112 more applications than in 2008 (see appendix p.10). This represents an increase of 70%. Review of CACB Canadian Education Standard (CES) (ongoing) The CES is the standard used by the CACB-CCCA to assess the academic qualifications of graduates of institutions that are not accredited by the CACB-CCCA or the NAAB. A consultant was hired to undertake this task and a final draft has been circulated for review by the regulators. The CES is still in the final step of its review process. A meeting was held in that regards at the CACB-CCCA office in Ottawa, on August 14, 2009 with the CALA Task Force for the CACB-CCCA to consult with the CACB-CCCA executives, staff and the Assessment Committee members. The expected recommendations will be brought by the Task Force to the CALA meeting in Winnipeg, MA, on October 23, Internet Technology (IT) Implementation The CACB-CCCA is continuing with the implementation of its Internet Technology System to manage the Certification and Accreditation workflow as well as the other operations. Currently the online application and online payment step is in its latest phase of development. January 2010 is targeted as official start. The other operations planned for are: Creation of an area for the Board of Directors to interact ; Creation of an area for the CACB Assessment Committee to review applications and interact; Creation of secure access (log in) where Provincial/Territorial Association of Architects can get statistics about their applicants and other shared data; Creation of secure areas where schools of architecture can edit and submit their Annual Reports (AR) on-line; Creation of a specific database to manage the team members roster and visiting teams as well as cyclical scheduling of accreditation visits; and Creation of an area for Accreditation Teams to review Visiting Team Reports and other materials. 8

93 C - ACCREDITATION PROGRAMME 2009 Cycle Accreditation Visits Two accreditation visits took place in 2009: Dalhousie University (M.Arch) in February 7-11, 2009; and University of Manitoba ( M.Arch) in March 7-11, 2009 Accreditation Decision At its Spring Board meeting, the CACB-CCCA board reviewed the Visiting Team Report for each University and recommended the following Accreditation Terms: University of Manitoba: Six-year term of accreditation (01/01/ /01/2015) with a Focused Evaluation at the end of two years (2011) on Condition 5 (Human Resources) and on Student Performance Criteria (Building systems integration) Cycle Dalhousie University: Six-year term of accreditation (01/01/ /01/2015) with a Focused Evaluation at the end of three years (2012) on Student Performance Criteria (Building systems integration) and (Comprehensive Design). Accreditation Visits No maintenance accreditation visits are scheduled for One Initial Accreditation Visit is scheduled for 2010 It will take place in the winter of 2010 at Ryerson University. This will be the first Initial Accreditation Visit since the creation of CACB-CCCA. At its spring 2009 meeting, the CACB-CCCA board approved the official request made by Ryerson University for an Initial Accreditation Visit. Ongoing initiatives in Accreditation Review of CACB-CCCA Conditions and Procedures for Accreditation The CACB-CCCA is currently reviewing the Conditions and Procedures of Accreditation with the objective of proposing limited changes which will deal with pressing issues that have been raised by recent experiences in CACB-CCCA s accreditation visits and by NAAB s 2008 Accreditation Review Conference and its ensuing 2009 Draft Conditions and procedures for accreditation. 9

94 In addition to reformatting and updating the document, the proposed changes in the Conditions concern: prescriptive measures, comparative data, cost and time to exhibit student work, and reorganization of the Student Performance Criteria. The proposed changes in the Procedures are, essentially: reformat document for clarity and ease of use, update language and terminologies use CACB-CCCA web forms, ftp site to reduce the volume of material to be prepared and reviewed for the Architecture Programme Report (APR), Annual Report (AR) and Visiting Team Report (VTR), etc. Standardize the structure and the size of the APR, develop guidelines, templates, etc. implement and use a web form of the VTR, develop a range of standardized and customizable comments (drop-down menu or list) Standardize and develop guidelines and templates for AR and promote its on-line submission D- INTERNATIONAL Canberra Accord CACB-CCCA s participation in the 2 nd General Meeting Gordon Richards and Claudio Brun del Re attended the 2 nd General Meeting of the Accord which was held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, April 22-23, The main topics of the meeting were: the Rules and Procedures, the next chair nomination, and the budget for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 The CACB-CCCA has accepted to participate with the CAA (the Commonwealth Association of Architects) in the task group formed to work on the development of a glossary and to draft interpretive standards for the Rules and Procedures. 10

95 APPENDIXES: STATISTICAL REPORT/CERTIFICATION PROGRAMME 11

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107 Memorandum To: From: Dave Edwards, Chair, National CACB Task Group Gerrie Doyle, President Date: September 22, 2009 Subject: Regular Reporting to CALA by the CACB Further to some discussions among members of the Council of the Ontario Association of Architects I would like to request that the national CACB Task Force review the issue of regular reporting to the members of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) by the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB). Given some concerns that have been raised by the OAA Council, OAA Director of Policy, Kristi Doyle and I have reviewed the CACB s Bylaws and their Terms of Reference and specifically request that the following information be reported to the members of CALA on a regular basis: a) statistics which include: i) number of domestic applicants ii) number of internationally trained applicants iii) number of appeals iv) number of refused applications v) country of origin of applicants b) minutes of each Board meeting to be provided to both the Regulators (and CCUSA) in a timely manner. In addition, while some of this information may be available upon request, or accessible on the CACB Web site, the following does not appear to be readily available as contemplated in the Bylaws/Terms of Reference: a) a register of individuals issued a Certificate that can be readily accessed by the Regulators (likely not appropriate web site information, however should be reported at the very least annually to CALA) b) publication of procedures for the appeal of decisions of the Board I understand that the national Task Group has done considerable work over the past two years and we appreciate what has been done to regain the ongoing communication and cooperation between the CACB and CALA. In keeping with that work we would ask that the Task Group continue to work with the CACB to ensure that the reporting between the CACB and CALA is further enhanced as noted above. On an added note, it is very clearly stated in the terms of reference for the CACB that the Board is to perform its duties in a manner that is fair, open and transparent, however there continues to be some concern around how this is being demonstrated to the members of CALA. The OAA Council Task Group discussed this at some length as well as some broader overarching issues relative to the CACB including how the CES is applied in practice and specifically safe guards that may be in place to provide assurance that it is in fact being applied in a fair and consistent manner. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

108 2 I understand that CACB President Gord Richards will be attending the CALA meeting in October and suggest that perhaps he may be able to address these particular issues, as well as reporting matters, at that time. Thanks. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

109 5.4.a

110 FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 5.4.a Memorandum To: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Rob Newman Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma From: Pawel Fiett, Chair, Communications Committee Committee Members: Lou Ampas Jane Burgess Andre Sherman Date: October 20, 2009 Subject: Objective: Communications Committee Update To provide an update on current and ongoing Communication activities. Background: 1. OAA Web site Audit & Re-design The Committee has been working with the team to determine the best way the Imis/CMS modules (already purchased) can be utilized/integrated to create the functionality and user experience within the new Web site Proof of Concept. The Committee requested the technical experts submit a plan and budget for a hybrid solution targeted for the November Council Meeting. Challenges were identified during the preliminary research and development of the hybrid solution. A lot of discussion took place between BMD group, Imis/CMS and Marilyn to come up with the technical process that would satisfy everyone. At an October 6, 2009 meeting it was confirmed that a complete review of all of the requirements of the new web site (functional and framework objectives) was needed in order to complete an accurate production scope, realistic timeline and budget. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

111 2 The Committee now plans to target its submission to Council for the December meeting. Next Steps: OAA Staff create general site requirements and content as well as allocate them into the content areas that were already established in the proof of concept. Identify staff responsible for content administration or creation within each content area and create preliminary lists identifying the requirements, processes and associated reporting for each item. Conduct meetings with appropriate staff contacts to review lists and to ensure Communication Framework objectives and functional requirements are met. Compile and analyze information. Prioritize requirements that must be completed for launch ( Phase 1, Phase 2 ) Devise and submit a plan including budgets for a hybrid solution at the December Council meeting. 2. Sustainable Built Environments Committee - Update See 5.4.b in the Open Package 3. Teleconferencing Solution for the OAA On September 3, 2009, Communications Chair, Pawel Fiett met with a Teleconferencing supplier to discuss a possible conferencing solution. The next step will be to organize a demonstration of the equipment at a future OAA Communications meeting to assess the product. A verbal update will be presented at the November Council Meeting. 4. Perspectives Editorial Committee The winter issue will be published in January. The text was reviewed by the Committee at its October 15, 2009 meeting. 5. Profiles Directory Final Editorial content for the 2010 Profiles Directory themed Residential Architecture was sent to Naylor Publishing on October 5, The Directory will be published and shipped by the end of December Honours & Awards Update The Task Group will be having a Conference call on October 23, 2009 to finalize Call for Entries details and Jury Selection. The OAA Awards Call for Entries post card will be sent to members by mid- November. The deadline for award submissions will be January 29, Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

112 5.4.b

113 FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 5.4.b Memorandum To: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser From: Sustainable Built Environment Committee (SBEC) Pawell Fiett, Vice President Communications Committee Members : Sean O Reilly (Chair) Rob Newman Alex Speigel Jesse Zuker Terri Boake Lou Ampas Andre Sherman Nancy Cohen Richard Williams Mark Gorgolewski Stephen Pope Date: October 27, 2009 Subject: Update of Committee Activities Objective: To provide Council with an update on the Committee s activities. Activities: Since the last Council meeting, the SBEC met on October 6 th at the OAA Headquarters and via conference call. The minutes for that meeting are attached. The next scheduled meeting of the Committee is November 19 th. Presenting at the meeting will be Julie Scarcella, Director of the Canada Green Building Council Toronto Chapter to discuss the Green Building Resource Centre proposal. The Committee is continuing to work on the development of the materials and information that supports the SBEC strategic plan and objectives. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

114 2 We are currently awaiting word from MMAH as to the appointments to the new Building Code Energy Advisory Council, and OAA staff is continuing to liaise with MMAH staff on this matter. Action: For information only. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

115 Notes of the Sustainable Built Environments Committee meeting Tuesday October 6, 2009 At the OAA Headquarters Building and Via Conference Call Present: Sean O Reilly, Chair Richard Williams Terrie Boake Stephen Pope Lou Ampas Jesse Zucker Andre Sherman Mark Gorgolewski Kristi Doyle Regrets: Alex Spiegel 1.0 Update re. City of Toronto Green Roofs Bylaw Lou Ampas reported that the City is considering additional amendments to the new Green Roofs Bylaw however it will likely be implemented as is in accordance with the January 1 st implementation date. Ampas suggested that the existing version is what exists on the City of Toronto Web site. If changes do occur they will likely be made once the bylaw has been in the field for a period of time i.e it will be launched as a pilot. The Committee considered the issues and concerns that had been raised previously by the Committee members as well as ProDemnity Insurance Company. After some discussion it was agreed that the role of the OAA at present should be to provide members with information about the bylaw, education and also any cautions or warnings. K. Doyle noted that the Toronto Society of Architects had recently issued two articles on the Green Roofs bylaw via their Summer 09 news letter with some comments and concerns for architects. It was suggest that the focus of the Committee should be on the technical matters i.e implementation and technology how to deal with the new law that is in place. Doyle noted that architect Monica Kuhn had written one of the TSA articles who has been very involved in green roofs over the last decade or more and noted that she had also done ConED for the OAA in the past related to Green Roofs. It was agreed that the OAA s approach to the members should be done in conjunction with the TSA and co-ordinated with the TSA. It was suggested that the City is simply pursuing this as an optical issue as opposed to true sustainability of the built environment. K.Doyle recalled the concern that had been raised previously by Pro-Demnity Insurance Company with respect to the green roofs initiatives as well as the green roofs professional that is being introduced by the Green Roofs Organization. The Committee

116 did acknowledge the concerns and agreed that the OAA should not necessarily be promoting the initiative, however should be providing members with information. It was suggest that a Green Roofs Primer be prepared for architects which would set out the impacts of the new bylaw, options in terms of technologies and also what are the risks. Links to pertinent information should also be provided and the issue of additional work should also be included. Action: It was agreed that Ampas, Williams and Sucker would work together to develop a package of materials for the OAA web site and co-ordinate these efforts with the TSA. It was further suggested that the team consider what the implication in terms of additional work this might intail and how this could impact Architectural Fees. 2. Strategic Directions Actions from last meeting Strategic Direction # 1 Update on Preparation of Executive Summary on Climate Change Pope indicated that he is continuing to work on this initiative and will report to the next Committee meeting. Update on Summary of Relevant Issues re. Renewable Energy Projects Sherman indicated that he is continuing to work on this initiative and will report to the next Committee meeting. Update on Executive Summary for Live-work and BCEAC Ampas indicated that he is continuing to work on this initiative and will report to the next Committee meeting. Update on MMAH and Air Tightness K. Doyle reported the following verbatim message from MMAH with respect to the Ministry s Air Tightness study: The objective of the air leakage study is to conduct a survey of average air leakage rates for typical homes built in accordance with the Building Code and to identify best practices with respect to installation of air barrier systems that are currently used to achieve airtight home envelopes. The study will investigate about 100 new homes that have been completed within the last 6 months. The homes are being tested in accordance with the air tightness test procedure outlined in the EnerGuide Rating System. The homes to be tested are selected from different regions of Ontario, based on the construction activity of that region and they are representatives of popular models that are currently being offered to consumers at that region. Energy star or R2000 homes are not included in the calculations of the average air leakage rate. The study will also address best air barrier practices by investigating good performing homes and interviewing EnergyStar and R2000 Builders. It is expected that the study will be concluded in Fall The study is being carried out by ALC Inc. and DSG Home Inspections.

117 K.Doyle also noted that she had been contacted earlier in the week by MMAH with respect to the Ministry s latest consultation document on proposed changes to the Building Code (specifically prescriptive alternatives to EnerGuide 80) as well as volunteers for the Ministry s Part 12 Technical Committee. Doyle indicated that information was to be forwarded to the OAA in the next few days and that she would pass it along to the Committee for further consideration. Strategic Direction # 2 Update on PPT Presentation for Life of Building resource document Pope indicated that he is continuing to work on this initiative and will report to the next Committee meeting. Update on preparations for Practice Committee BIM Think Tank K.Doyle reported that the OAA Practice Committee continues to work on this initiative and suggested that there may have been a change in direction relative to the proposed Think Tank. Action: K.Doyle to arrange a conference call between SBEC members Richard Williams and Practice Committee Chair, David Craddock and Practice Committee members John Stephenson in order to move this forward. Strategic Direction # 3 Update on resource paper Real Value Architects bring to Sustainable Design Pope reported that he is continuing to work on this initiative and will report to the next meeting. Strategic Direction # 4 Update on BCEAC and preparations for meetings on Green Energy K. Doyle noted that a letter has been sent to the Minister regarding the OAA s 4 nominations for the Committee and the appointments to the Committee are pending. Pope noted that the government of British Columbia is much farther ahead than any province with respect to greening their building code. Pope forwarded to Committee members a copy of a PPT presentation related to the BC Code for information Challenge Update on reformatting of Leap to Carbon Zero PPT Boake noted that she had not yet had time to complete this project, however added that she is working on an annotated learning module which may be of interest to the OAA for future learning activities.

118 3. OAA Web site Suggestions for the Communications Committee on our wish list. The Committee had a brief discussion with respect to what the Green area of the OAA Web site should look like when the OAA s new web site is implemented. The Committee agreed that they would like to see teaser information and also much more visual presentation of the information as opposed to just lists of information. It was also suggested that the Committee could use the new web site to conduct periodic webinars on green initiatives for the benefit of OAA members. There was some discussion as well with respect to video taping future OAA conference sessions for the benefit of members who were unable to attend the conference. Action: O Reilly to take these suggestions to the Communications Committee and develop a conceptual site map for the web section to be circulated to the committee for comment and refinement and then taken to the Communications Committee. 4. Ontario Green Building Resource Centre The Committee reviewed the material that had been presented to K. Doyle by the Ontario General Building Resource Center and in particular the offer to make a presentation to the SBEC. There was some discussion as to what the intentions of the OGBRC as they relate to the OAA. After the discussion it was agreed that they be invited to make a short presentation to the SBEC at the November 19 th meeting. It was also noted that SBEC member Mark Gorgelewski is a part of the Center s Board of Directors. Action: Staff to invite Ontario Green Building Resource Center to November meeting. 5. Next Meeting It was agreed that the next meeting would be held on November 19 th, 2009 at the OAA Headquarters.

119 5.5.a

120 Memorandum FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 5.5.a To: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma From: Louis Cooke, Vice President, Statutory Activities Date: October 23, 2009 Subject: Activities under the Registrar September 15, 2009 through October 23, 2009 Licence Total Members on October 23 is 2808 of which Licensed Technologist OAA is 22 Non-Practising Architect is 18 The Office of the Registrar received 19 Applications for Licence, of which there were 2 Internationally Trained Professionals. There have been 16 Licences approved of which, 7 were first time applicants (of these 3 were Internationally Trained Professionals), 4 were under the Reciprocal Agreement, 2 were under the Inter-Recognition Agreement, 1 was a Reinstatement, 1 was a Non-Practising Architect, and 1 was a Licensed Technologist OAA. Certificate of Practice Total Certificates of Practice on October 23 is 1381 of which Licensed Technologist OAA is 3 The Office of the Registrar received 18 Applications for Certificate of Practice. There have been 8 Certificates of Practice approved of which 6 were new Certificates of Practice and 2 changes to existing Certificates of Practice. Temporary Licence/Certificate of Practice under Section 23 of the Act (CofP 23 ) Total active Temporary Licences is 33 Total active CofP 23 is 30 The OAA received 2 Applications for Temporary Licence and Certificate of Practice 23. Experience Requirements Committee (ERC) There were no interviews held during this period with no interviews scheduled.

121 2 Intern Architects Total Intern Architects on October 23 is 1351 The OAA received 10 Intern Architect Applications. Student Associates Total Student Associates on October 23 is 202 The OAA received 3 Student Associate Applications. Complaints Committee There are currently 3 cases before the Complaints Committee. Public Interest Review Committee (PIRC) There were no meetings held during this period. Discipline Committee There are no discipline hearings scheduled and no discipline matters pending. Notification was received that an Appeal to Divisional Court of a Discipline Decision was dismissed. We have been subsequently advised that the Architect will seek Leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal the Divisional Court Decision. Act Enforcement (Cease & Desist, Prosecution, Injunction) Total received to date is 39 The OAA has received documentation with respect to 3 individuals and/or entities indicating use of the term Architect or Architectural or misrepresenting him/her/itself to the public. The documentation for 2 of these individuals has been forwarded to legal counsel for action; and the Registrar has contacted 1 individual. Registration Committee There are no hearings scheduled.

122 5.6.a

123 FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 5.6.a Memorandum To: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser From: David Craddock, Vice President, Practice Committee Members: Domenic Cristofaro Toon Dreessen Ian Grinnell Bruce March John Stephenson Stanford Downey Christopher Fillingham Hoda Kayal Gerry Morris Date: October 21, 2009 Subject: Practice Portfolio Report / Update Objective: To update Council on activities under the VP Practice Portfolio. Background: NOTE: The Practice Committee (PC) Chair orally reported the below at OAA Council meeting on September 24, At the September 15, 2009 meeting, PC discussed the following: PC Objectives for 2009 (Update) Distribution of OAA Documents Electronic vs. Hard Copy (Core) General discussion ensued over electronic and hard copy documents. Some comments included: - the OAA issues most documents in electronic format, with the belief that an architect can easily download the document(s) to create individual files - it was suggested that on the day a member obtained his Certificate of Practice (CofP), the member be ed a list of core documents. Alternatively, the OAA could provide a binder (which included a CD containing core documents), which the member would then download - one member suggested that if one held a CofP, one must also become a member of the RAIC, where one could access documents at no charge. Some discussion ensued on 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

124 2 whether members be charged for documents (blanket fee?) or have them provided at no cost (membership privilege) - there was a recommendation to remove Document 301 Short Form Agreement from OAA core documents. The Chair requested that a list of core documents be prepared, identifying which ones should be issued as hard copies or electronically or both, and in addition, prepare a cost scenario. A document would be drafted for next PC meeting and it was suggested that the matter be advanced to the OAA Communications Committee for further consideration. RFP Excesses Towards a Better RFP Final draft would be provided for PC s review for next meeting. Final report to be advanced to Council at December meeting. Rebranding of Document 600 PC is awaiting direction from Complaints Committee before undertaking further modification of Document 600. One member suggested applying a disclaimer stating OAA Document 600 is not a Construction Management Document. Quality Assurance/Quality Management Systems ISO 9000 Registration Some general discussion ensued where it was stated ISO is costly and is not necessarily improving management. Final draft would be provided for PC s review for next meeting. Final report to be advanced to Council at December meeting. Educational Approach for Current Members Final draft would be provided for PC s consideration at next meeting. Final report to be advanced to Council at December meeting. Report on CCDC The PC had discussed the further advancement of the OAA endorsed supplementary conditions for CCDC 2, 2008 to the CCDC table and also for inclusion in principle in other CCDC document for consistency. It is suggested that the OAA continue to incorporate those supplementary conditions into comments on other draft CCDC documents from the OAA and that at some point the entire package should be advanced to the CCDC table, with the agreement of the OGCA to press the CCDC table to make those amendments to the CCDC 2 document. Report from Sub-Committee on Building Codes and Regulations (SCOBCAR) The Chair informed PC that a public review was underway on the national model construction code documents. SCOBCAR was reviewing and assessing these proposed changes as well as participating in the consultation on interim changes to the 2006 Building Code, both with a Ministry deadline of October 30 th. Additionally, SCOBCAR was finishing up a public review of the Initial Proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard. SCOBCAR had determined that the document was poorly designed, with little consistency and accuracy. Approx. 180 comments on individual clauses were to be submitted and a cover letter forwarded to the reviewing committee (copying the Minister) voicing the OAA s concern over mandatory retrofit and impact of construction costs on the industry. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

125 3 Report from BIM Sub-Committee The Chair to contact Stephenson for update. Final report to be advanced to Council at December meeting. Copyright Issues re Electronic Files (Update) Greenberg informed PC that Jon Hobbs (Executive Director, RAIC) had been away and an update would be forthcoming at the next meeting. Additionally, the RAIC would be holding a meeting October 23 rd to determine RAIC practice matters. Greenberg and the Chair to draft memo to advance to the RAIC meeting. RAIC Practice Support Committee The Chair informed PC that a part-time Practice Specialist, Graham Murfitt had been hired by the RAIC. The position may become full-time at a later date. Murfitt may join an OAA PC meeting in the future, if budget allowed. PC was additionally informed that the RAIC wished for the OAA PC to act as a clearing house for more coherent practice strategy. Additionally, RAIC wanted more dialogue from provinces as it was felt CCDC was not totally in-tune with the national voice. CCDC Document 17: Stipulated Price Contract Between Owner and Trade Contractor for Construction Management Projects PC was informed that some CCDC documents were scheduled to be distributed for PC s review and comments: 5A: Construction Management Contract For Services, and 5B: Construction Management Contract For Services and Construction, as well as Document 17: Stipulated Price Contract Between Owner and Trade Contractor for Construction Management Projects. It was decided that Greenberg and Aitken would undertake an initial review of CCDC Document 17. A copy of Document 17 with their remarks would be forwarded to PC for review and comments. Documents 5A and 5B would be advanced in the near future. Construction Management The Chair informed PC that the OAA Complaints Committee continues to receive complaints on construction management contracts. The Complaints Committee had disclosed that the membership has seemingly become complacent on using contracts and is additionally straying away from traditional services even design build has been affected. Greenberg continues to get calls involving architects acting as construction manager(s). Taking the position of the architect acting in the best interest (due care and diligence) of the client, it was suggested that the OAA should provide clarity on good practice. Based on Council s determination, a direction regarding practice could be communicated to members on how to proceed in a knowledgeable way. It was suggested that OAA Council might consider embracing non-traditional services. Perhaps the Regulation might be changed to address these issues. Pro-Demnity could be consulted on types of insurance that could/could not be provided for non-traditional construction management services. The Chair stated that Council would be discussing these issues at the next meeting. Action: For information only. No action is required at this time. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

126 5.6.c

127 Memorandum To: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 5.6.c From: Louis Cooke, VP of Regulatory Activities on behalf of the Complaints Committee Date: October 27, 2009 Subject: Project Management and/or Construction Management Services in addition to architectural services on the same project. i.e. development of various agreements Objective: To bring to the attention of Council concerns that have been discussed and researched by the Complaints Committee (Committee) during six monthly meetings regarding the above matters. Background: Council reviewed a Memo from the Committee in this regard at its June 25, 2009 meeting (Appendix 1) and agreed to hear from a deputation from the Committee at its November 5, 2009 meeting. Michelle Gibson, Chair of the Committee will attend the November 5th Council meeting and speak to the issue along with David Craddock, James Farrow and Michael Visser, Council s appointees to the Committee. The memo from the Committee to the June 25, 2009 meeting brings to the attention of Council concerns regarding the use or lack thereof of standard contracts which effectively address the types of professional architectural services which are being provided to the public. The Committee has been actively reviewing current and past cases whereby the use or lack of a contract form the basis of the complaint and more significantly, the scope of services and types of projects involved in these complaints. In June of 2009, the Committee requested historical data on past complaints to determine the distribution of cases as it relates to type of project, use of a contract, services provided and actions taken by the Committee (Appendix 2). Given the number of cases reviewed by the Committee during this time period, there is a significant portion of those cases involving residential projects as well as project or construction management services and contractual disagreements. Most important, the summary prepared by the Office of the Registrar clearly supports the position of the Committee that further action is required. The following are concerns and recommendations by the Committee for consideration by Council, in order to address the issues that continue to form a large part of the basis for complaints received: Concern 1: Clients and general public do not understand the roles and responsibilities of the architect, the client, the contractor and the manager. 1

128 The Committee has reviewed numerous complaints in which the client s expectations are not met and their understanding of the scope of services to be provided by the architect and the contractor are not clear. In evaluating each of these cases, the Committee has often found that no written contract exists that establishes the agreed upon scope of services. If there is a written contract between the two parties, it is often limited in content without properly defining terms and conditions and any limitations each party may have, in particular what services are not provided. In recent years, the Committee has also seen a marked increase in cases in which the architect is providing turnkey services incorporating management of the project through construction. Often the type of management service proposed is confusing with terms such as project management and construction management used interchangeably. The previous memo to Council noted prior has outlined cases involving alternate forms of project delivery and misunderstanding by both parties as to their roles and obligations. Action: 1. Develop agreed upon clear definitions of all terms of the contract, in layperson terms, for use by the architect in developing the scope of services to be provided. This could be prepared as an appendix to be attached to a contract or as a Practice Tip for use by members as an educational tool. Key words and services to define are, types of project delivery and legal terms such as liens, statutory declaration and warranty. 2. Develop a checklist of services that can be easily reviewed with the client. Currently Document 600 includes a detailed schedule that can be daunting for the general public. Schedule B provides a simplified summary but is often overlooked because members are not using standard contracts. The Canadian Handbook of Practice (CHOP) has a one page check list but this may not accommodate alternate project delivery methods. 3. As part of that check list (2 above), identify services that are not covered under the Pro-Demnity Insurance Company (Pro-Demnity). 4. Develop lines of communication that defines the role each party plays in the contract and defines who can instruct others at each stage of the project. 5. Develop an Admission or Annual Conference course on the types of project delivery available and the scope of services that form part of those services. Include in the course the impact on insurance and the liability associated with each and use sample cases to emphasize the need to clearly define the scope to ensure all parties to the contract are in agreement. Alternately, this could be issued as a Regulatory Notice/Practice Tip, but may be more effective if formally presented. 6. Review definitions and impact of use of alternate project delivery methods with Pro-Demnity, Practice Advisor and Registrar to establish any limitations to the provision of those services due to legal constraints of the Act, insurance coverage or regulatory bodies. Incorporate that information into the course (5 above), or prepare a document for use by members in contract negotiations. 7. Consider mandatory use of standard contracts. Include definitions and checklists of services as part of the standard contract. Summary: By developing an updated list of definitions, roles and a checklist of services that address the current conditions in which we deliver services to the public, members can use this as a supplement to the 2

129 contract and ensure the type and scope of services for that project are understood and documented. Concern 2: The use of standard contracts is inconsistent in the industry and considered onerous for smaller types of projects. Document 600 is the standard contract recommended by the OAA and is a comprehensive document outlining in detail definitions, services and terms of contract. Other versions of contracts are also available for use, including links to a sample contract found on the CMHC Web site as well as those developed by the CCDC for project management and construction management. Document 300 Short Form Agreement is also available from the OAA and is considered a temporary contract to allow the architect to proceed while the actual contract is prepared. In their review of types of contracts, the Practice Committee also shared a draft contract currently under their review, as well as a sample Standard Short Form Agreement provided to them and the Committee by Pro-Demnity. In many of the complaints submitted to the Committee the contract consists of a letter summarizing a general scope of work and associated fees without a defined list of services or limitations to those services. In reviewing these cases, the Committee has found that the lack of definition and confirmation of scope of services is the basis for the complaint and that had a formal contract been in place, a significant number of these complaints could have been avoided. In trying to determine why members are avoiding the use of a standard contract, Committee members had varying opinions including concern by architects that Document 600 is too onerous and confusing, the client is intimidated by the legalese, many of the clauses may not apply to what appears to be a simple house project, or the member is just too lazy and covers it off with a form letter. The Committee is finding that the majority of cases are a result of poorly defined scope of services in non- standard contract form. In addition to that concern is the inclusion of non- traditional services without a full understanding by the architect or the client as to the impact on the project or any legal challenges. The Committee is in agreement that a standard short form contract should be required and that members whose scope of services encompasses housing or small projects may be better served by a contract expressly suited to projects of that scale. Action: 8. Develop a standard contract appropriate for use on small projects. Consider a short form style with ability to add on scope through the use of attachments such as additional services for interior design, BIM or presentations to authorities. 9. Ensure the contract defines the scope of services included and excluded and provide access to more detailed information if required by either the public or the member through Web site or handouts. 10. Prepare a Regulatory Notice/Practice Tip on the dos and don ts of the practice of architecture to ensure members are providing necessary services and not compromising their coverage or compliance to all regulatory bodies. Topics could include lien rights, site visits and reports, dealing with authorities and what forms a contract. Summary: By developing a standard short form contract suited for residential and small projects that allows members to clearly define their scope of services, members can customize the contract to suit each 3

130 project condition with supplemental forms for specialty services without compromising the need for concise contract terms. Concern 3: Members are offering diverse scopes of services and may not be properly informed as to the requirements or regulations associated with those services. In recent months, the Committee has seen a rise in complaints related to the provision of Project/Construction Management services provided in tandem with traditional architectural services (Appendix 3). Many of the complaints are based on a lack of understanding by either or both parties to the contract as to what those services actually entail and what the architect has provided. In addition, there is concern that members are contracting for services that are not covered by the Indemnity Plan and may be considered a conflict of interest in their dual role as architect and manager. The challenge we face as a profession is ensuring that our clients understand the regulations to which we must adhere and how best to provide those services without compromise to either the quality of the project, the working relationship between the parties and the legal requirements impacting the project. The general public needs to be provided with the necessary information in order to make an informed decision. Action: 11.* Appoint a Task Group to further investigate the impact of provision of Project/Construction Management services in addition to traditional architectural services. Committee Member Chris Perry has prepared a draft summary dated August 11, 2009 on the topic (Appendix 4). 12. Prepare a specific contract for Project Management and Construction Management in addition to a standard contract for architectural services to ensure members do not contravene any legal authority. 13. Review the Act and meet with Pro-Demnity to ensure regulations and coverage are not compromised. Determine if amendments to either are required. *Note: Project Management and Construction Management services were discussed by the Committee as well as with the Practice Advisor and Pro-Demnity Staff(Appendix 5). Conclusion: The Committee has the unique opportunity of reviewing complaints presented from the public point of view and this has provided them with insight into how the practice of architecture is perceived and where misunderstandings and miscommunication form a large part of the dissatisfaction that initiates a complaint. In reading the complaint submissions, it becomes clear that better tools are needed in order for members to provide those services effectively and without compromise to the practice and business of architecture. Definitions of services that are clear, scope of services that are understood and a fee that reflects the level and quality of services provided are all tools that, when used properly, can take a project from concept through construction smoothly and with satisfaction for all parties. Appendices: 1. Memo from Complaints Committee to the June 25, 2009 Council Meeting 2. Statistics of 63 Complaints during the period April 2005 July 2009 per categories 3. Complaints Case Summary Report on Project/Construction Management 4. Project / Construction Management Discussion Paper dated August 11, 2009 from Chris Perry, 4

131 Complaints Committee Member 5. Discussions with Practice Advisor and Pro-Demnity Insurance staff plus comments of Committee members (Excerpts from Complaints Committee Meetings of June 6, August 11 and September 15, 2009) Note: Contracts or their drafts have not been included here but will be directed to a Task Force as required. Reference Material: Standard Construction Document CCA 25 (2001) A Guide to Project Management Services Standard Construction Document CCA 26 (2000) A Guide to Construction Management Contracts Standard Construction Document CCA 5 (1988) Canadian Standard Construction Management Contract Form between Owner and Construction Manager Architect Handbook of Professional Practice, Joseph A Demkin (AIA), Chapter 18.7 Appropriate Regulatory Notices/Practice Tips Appropriate Sections of CHOP Action by Council: Council is requested to consider establishing a Task Group to further investigate all the items set out within Action Items 1-13 and report back to Council. 5

132 Appendix 1 To: Memorandum Council Gerrie Doyle Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Michael Visser Andre Sherman Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Rob Newman Vladimir Popovic Thomas Thoma From: David Craddock, Vice President Practice and Council Appointee on the Complaints Committee Date: June 16, 2009 Subject: Development of a Short-Form Standard Agreement for Architectural Services and the issue of the provision of Project Management or Construction Management Services in addition to architectural services on the same project. Objective: To bring to the attention of Council a discussion at the June 9, 2009 meeting of the Complaints Committee regarding the above matters. Background: The above referenced issue arose out of a complaint which created concern for members of the Committee. This instance is another example of a sole practitioner involved in a residential project (large custom home/vacation property) involved in a dispute with the home owner over scope of services and questions of malpractice. Despite having issued a recent Practice Tip on Housing Contracts, the Committee continues to be inundated with complaints specific to issues around architects providing services for housing projects. In addition, the architect of this complaint appears to be offering to the public a turn key service which provides construction services. Within the architect s sales brochure is the description of a seamless process from schematic design through to full project management services. The root of the problem is that these services are being offered to the client through the Certificate of Practice of the architect. While there is some pretense of a separate management firm involved in the project, it is evident that the distinction is not clear contractually to the client or to the public (trades and material suppliers). During the review of this case we consulted with the OAA Practice Advisory Service staff as well as with Pro-Demnity Insurance Company staff with respect to the ramifications of this issue. It is clear to us that this type of case is becoming increasingly common at all levels of our firm sizes. The increased use of Design/ Build, Construction Management and other alternate forms 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

133 2 of project delivery are blurring the roles of the architect, and many architects wear more than one hat on a single project. The Committee has brought forth to Council the issue of the need for a thorough review of Client/Architect contracts as well as guidelines for their use as it is apparent that many of our members do not appreciate the need to clearly identify the scope of their services and their contractual role with the client. Furthermore, they do not ensure that their client is so advised and agrees to this scope of services. The Committee has noted the following points below which summarize the shortcomings recognized in many of the complaints in the current case load: The majority of our complaints are on misunderstanding roles and obligations of the client, the architect and the contractor; Definitions for key words, phrases, schedule and roles should be provided to the client during the discussion of the architect s services and be included in a written proposal; There should be a line of communication outlined in the contract i.e. who can instruct the contractor and who can make changes; Having a supplement to the base Document 600 is an option, but pushing for significant change to simplify the base document is preferred, then use supplemental forms and attach as appropriate (BIM services, project management, construction management); How to add construction management or project management services to those small projects. The Complaints Committee has also suggested that a greater emphasis be placed upon membership education, as well as the development of a Practice Tip Bulletin on multiple roles again, along with an actual definition on what construction management and project management are and how they differ. We will continue to investigate this issue over the summer months and will continue to consult with the research arm of Pro-Demnity Insurance Company. The Complaints Committee has requested an opportunity to make a deputation to Council at its September or other fall meeting of Council. At that time the Committee hopes to have the opportunity to present some detailed research on this issue with some possible recommendations for consideration. Action: Council to consider the development of a short-form standard agreement for architectural services and the issue of the provision of project management or construction management services in addition to architectural services on the same project and grant an opportunity for the Complaints Committee to meet with Council and discuss the above issue at its September 2009 or other fall Council Meeting. 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

134 SUMMARY OF COMPLAINTS REVIEWED BY THE COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE APPENDIX 2 DURING APRIL 2005 JULY 2009 Total Number of Complaints Analysed: 63 (Note: Due to partial dismissals & partial referrals as well as complaints which do not fit into the groups A, B & C and & are termed *Miscellaneous in this summary, the numbers may not total exactly) Categories Committee Decision Total Withdrawn No Action Undertaking Letter of Required Caution Referred A. House Projects B. Architect vs. Architect C. From Building Officials Miscellaneous* 7* Total 63 B. Architect Vs. Architect Committee Decision Total Withdrawn No Action Required Undertaking Letter of Caution Referred Takeover Procedures Credit for Authorship Website Related Miscellaneous Total 22 A: House Projects B: Architect vs. Architect C: From Building Officials B: Architect vs. Architect Take over Procedures Credit for Authorship Web site Related Miscellaneous No Written Contract Committee Decision Total Withdrawn No Action Required Undertaking Letter of Caution Referred House Other Total - 11 Notes: One of a total of 11 complaints reviewed was based on an oral contract. In two of a total of 11 complaints reviewed, although an original contract existed, changes made to the original contract were not documented in writing. Of a grand total of 63 complaints reviewed, 11 did not have written contracts = 17.5%

135 APPENDIX 3 REPORT COMPLAINTS WITH PROJECT/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ISSUES SUMMARY OF COMPLAINTS REVIEWED BY THE COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE DURING APRIL 2005 OCTOBER 2009 Total Number of Complaints Reviewed: 63 As per the request of the Complaints Committee at its September 15, 2009 meeting, the 63 complaints investigated by the Complaints Committee during the period April 2005 to July 2009 were reviewed by the Administrative Assistant to determine whether the bases of those complaints referred to the provision of Project or Construction Management services in addition to architectural services by the respondent member. A total of 4 complaints contained project/construction management issues. Two complaints were partially based on the provision of project/construction management services. In the first of the two complaints referred to above, the Committee determined that the member was retained initially by the client to act in the capacity of the client s project manager and then as the replacement architect of record. Within the Reasons for Decision document, the Committee recommended to the respondent to become aware of the Conflicts of Interest provisions of the Regulation 27, Section 43.(1) (c). This complaint was not referred to the Discipline Committee. The complaint was filed by another member. In the second, the Committee determined that the respondent acted as the architect of record as well as the project/construction manager and noted the resulting conflict of interest in the Reasons for Decision document. The respondent was issued a letter of caution and an undertaking. The undertaking referred to the respondent becoming familiar with disclosure of an interest as well as stipulated conflict of interest provisions. This complaint was not referred to the Discipline Committee. The complaint was filed by the client. In a third complaint. the project began while the individual was an Intern Architect and continued after his licensure. The complaint was about the failure to supervise implementation of a design for which the member was paid a management fee. The member was retained by the complainant to provide services covering design, contract documents and contract administration services. This complaint was not referred to the Discipline Committee but issued an undertaking to become more familiar with professional standards for Building Code related matters and personal supervision and direction of contract administration functions. The complaint was filed by the client. The fourth complaint, which is presently before the Complaints Committee, involves project/construction management issues. A final decision has not been rendered by the committee on this case. The complaint was filed by the client. Respectfully submitted: Kshamalee Wirekoon Administrative Assistant October 27, 2009.

136 Project Management/Construction Management (Prepared by Chris Perry, Complaints Committee Member) APPENDIX 4 Management of the Project Effective management of the project is an essential element of good professional practice. Background The design and construction environment is rapidly changing. Options for project delivery have multiplied and more than one option is available for each project, depending on the client s needs and the project team s ability to deliver. For architects seeking a way to control the construction process in order to maintain their professional relationships with their clients, providing Project Management and Construction Management services is a viable project delivery method. Project Management Project Management is the comprehensive management of all aspects of a construction project from conception to completion of construction and commissioning. The objectives of Project Management are to coordinate and control, through the application of management techniques, all aspects of the project, and to deliver a well-designed and constructed facility within the Owner s specifications, schedule and budget. The main difference between Project Management and Construction Management services is that Project Management services covers all aspects of a project, including design and construction management services. The Project Manager provides the Owner with an organization to deal specifically with the design and construction of the new facility, thereby relieving the Owner of this responsibility. Essentially, the Project Manager acts as the Owner s agent and has responsibility for all day-to-day decisions. Project Management services generally include the following: o Define and verify Owner s Project Requirements, Project Budget and Project Schedule o Establish, in consultation with the Owner, the Project Budget and Project Schedule o Retain (on behalf of the Owner) all required consultants for the proper and complete execution of the Project o Retain (on behalf of the Owner) all required contractual services for the proper and complete execution of the Project o Provide project budgeting and cost control services o Provide project accounting services o Provide project scheduling services o Management, coordination and expediting of all surveying, site analysis, planning and zoning requirements and the identification and coordination of the needs and requirements of all authorities having jurisdiction with regard to the Project, including the identification of all permits, licenses, fees payable that are necessary to permit the project to function for its intended purpose o Management, coordination and expediting of all consultant and contractual services required for the project o Management, coordination and expediting of all required quality assurance and control for the project o Management, coordination and expediting of the commissioning of the Project. Reference: Standard Construction Document CCA 25 (2001) A Guide to Project Management Services Construction Management 1

137 Construction Management (CM) is a contracting method used in the construction industry whereby the Construction Manager acts as agent for the Owner rather than as an independent contractor. Under this Construction Management arrangement, the traditional roles and relationship of Owner/General Contractor disappear. The Owner engages the trade contractors directly and thereby assumes much of the role and responsibility of the traditional general or prime contractor. The Construction Manager serves as the Owner s advisor and agent, providing site management, administrative and technical services solely for the benefit of the Owner and in support of the Owner s interests. Construction Management services can be integrated into both the design and construction phases of a project or provided during construction only. Construction Management services can be provided using different contractual arrangements that involve different degrees of risk (and reward). Architects, designers, contractors and other third party entities offer CM services to clients. The main difference between Project Management and Construction Management is that the Project Manager has a contract with the Owner and, in turn, employs the consultant and the Construction Manager to form the team. Construction Management services generally include the following: o Assist with preliminary planning relative to the construction requirements for the project o Advise on schedules, budgets and economics of various methods, material selection and detailing during the design phase o Advise on and arrange for all services and all trade contractors to carry out the various phases of the construction work o Plan, schedule, coordinate and supervise in the administration of the construction o Coordinate inspection services, commissioning and handover of the constructed project. Construction Managers can serve in different capacities with varying degrees of authority (advisor, agent or constructor). Depending upon how the project is organized, a CM can: o o Act as an advisor during a particular phase of the design, documentation or construction process; Manage the construction of the project, with the owner contracting directly with each trade contractor. Advantages: o Single point accountability o Better control of the project construction schedule o Increase project quality o Improved integration between design and construction o Daily on-site representation by the architect o Natural transition for clients and staff o Savings in project costs o Increased profitability for architect o Return to master builder concept o Enhanced risk management Disadvantages: o Conflict of interest (CM will protect the design interests of the architect) o Professional and general liability (insurable risks) o Job site safety issues ( constructor ) o Uninsurable risks (failure to comply with laws and regulations) Reference: Standard Construction Document CCA 26 (2000) A Guide to Construction Management Contracts 2

138 Standard Construction Document CCA 5 (1988) Canadian Standard Construction Management Contract Form between Owner and Construction Manager Architect Handbook of Professional Practice, Joseph A Demkin (AIA), Chapter 18.7 Risk Management (Client/Architect Agreements) The provision of Project Management and Construction Management services by an architect is generally considered additional to the Basic Services as outlined in the standard Client/Architect Agreements. It is preferable to use either the Canadian Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and Architect: Document Six or the Canadian Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and Architect Abbreviated Version: Document Seven, because: o o o These agreements are widely recognized and accepted; The architect s and the client s responsibilities are clearly defined; They clearly identify the scope of work by distinguishing between Basic Services and Additional Services. However, the latest OAA Document 600, 2007 does identify under General Services, All Applicable Phases a scope of service Construction Management Services as follows: Provide construction management services including the following: o Advise client regarding alternative construction methods and procedures during design development o Assist client in sequential bidding of trade contractors and suppliers o Assist client in assembling contracts directly with trade contractors and suppliers o Advise client regarding Ontario construction health and safety legislation concerning owner as constructor o Appoint competent supervisor on site o Schedule and coordinate the work of trade contractors and suppliers o Coordinate deficiency correction o Oversee correction of warranty issues It is not only professional, but also good business practice, to have a clear, written agreement, which outlines the roles and responsibilities of both parties. The use of the Canadian Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and Architect: document six or Canadian Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and Architect Abbreviated Version: Document Seven is always recommended. There is no reason to use a customized letter as a form of agreement in place of the Standard Forms of Agreement. Oral agreements should never be used. Risk Management (Indemnity) The three (3) areas of most concern are professional and general liability (insurable risks), job site safety, and uninsurable risks. Both professional and general liability can be covered with adequate insurance. Professionally, Construction Management is an architectural service similar to design and can be insured under a standard professional liability policy (need to confirm OAA Pro- Demnity position). General liability can be covered with a standard general contractor s general liability policy (need to confirm). Architects should review and confirm with insurance providers to make sure they are properly underwritten. Job site safety can pose added risk, although by contract, the responsibility for job site safety rests with the Owner and with the individual contractors. Architects should remove themselves contractually from job site safety when acting as a Construction Manager. 3

139 In all situations, architects should consult with legal and insurance counsels for advise on the management of risks while offering Construction Management services. Items for Discussion 1. Should Client/Architect agreements have scope of services directly related to the provision of Project and Construction Management services? 2. What are the acceptable scopes of Project and Construction Management services that an architect can provide under the Architect s Act? 3. Is additional professional liability insurance required to cover the provision of Project and Construction Management services? If yes, will Pro-Demnity provide the coverage? 4. Do OAA and Council support the provision of Project and Construction Management services? August 11,

140 APPENDIX 5 Excerpt from the Summary of Matters of the June 9, 2009 Complaints Committee Meeting: Discussion with Charles Greenberg, OAA Practice Advisor and John Hackett, VP Practice Risk Management of Pro-Demnity Insurance Co. regarding provision of project/construction management services in addition to architectural services on the same project The above discussion is recorded generally as follows: When an architect extends his professional services to include advice, the advice given is usually covered from an insurance view point. However, where an architect engages in project management (i.e. picks up a hammer, retains sub-trades) Insurance will not cover those actions. That an architect may not be considered as competent to engage in anything other than architectural practice; therefore expansion of services to encompass project management aspects may not eventually be a good fit. The difficulty from the view point of a lay person/client to know the different regulatory regimes for architectural services and construction management services when they are provided by the member for the same project. That presently many well known architects perform both functions without considering the definitions of each. The OAA has not committed to a support system for its members to differentiate the functions and tools of the two components. OAA has not considered accreditation for project management services. Under the Architects Act the OAA may not have jurisdiction with respect to Project/Construction Management Services. There being no written differentiations of the two components, clients are unaware of the scope of service of each component, which leads to more complaints. Is there an inherent conflict of interest in being an architect and a project manager on the same project and if so that members should be made aware of the existence of a possible conflict of interest. It was noted that conflict of interest is defined for members within the Regulation. The evolution of the OAA from a regulatory body with authority over architectural services has now extended to the provision of project management on the same project by members but sufficient safeguards have not been established by the OAA for this extended role. Construction/Project Management companies are headed by engineers but since those engineers do not also practice engineering, no conflict of interest appears to exist.

141 Following the above discussion and after Messrs Greenberg and Hackett had left the meeting, the Committee resumed discussion on Case #999 and it was decided that the questions formulated on this case be sent to the parties to the complaint for response prior to the next meeting. Perry was requested to develop a draft on the role and responsibilities of the architect in matters other than in architectural practice for the next meeting. Craddock stated that he would forward a copy of the short form contract information that Pro-Demnity Insurance circulated as a draft at the Practice Committee meeting of May 2009 to staff to be forwarded to the members of the Complaints Committee. Craddock further reported on a discussion at a recent EABO meeting regarding concern expressed by representatives of Municipalities about the OAA Complaints and Discipline Process. In this connection, staff were directed to compile an analysis of recent complaints into the following categories: House projects Take over procedures Architect vs. architect Website matters Credit for authorship Complaints received from Building Officials. It was also decided that the Chair and Craddock develop an information memorandum for the June 25 th Council Meeting regarding: Development of a Short-Form Agreement for Architectural Services and the Provision of Project Management/Construction Management Services by members in addition to providing architectural services on the same project. It was further noted that within this Memo, Council be requested to consider a deputation from the Complaints Committee at its September or other fall meeting to discuss this matter in detail.

142 APPENDIX 5 Excerpt from the Summary of Matters of the August 11, 2009 Complaints Committee Meeting: (1) Discussion Paper developed by Chris Perry on Roles and Responsibilities of the architect in providing Project Management or Construction Management Services in addition to architectural services on the same project: Perry elaborated on his report to the Committee and stated that due to the lack of clarity within the profession of the definitions of the terms Project Management and Construction Management, as a first step in this process, he had endeavoured to do so in the discussion paper, using the resources named within. He further stated that next steps would entail fine tuning the role of the architect in the two processes vis a vis the roles of the client and the general contractor. Perry further stated that going forward, the OAA would be required to develop definitions for use by the membership. Discussion ensued as follows: that duplication existed within the menu of the terms Project Management and Construction Management; that the term project manager tended to be too generic; the level of risk entailed by the definitions of Project and Construction Management; Are the functions described exceeding the role of an architect vis a vis the Architects Act? addition of a list of tasks an architect cannot do in this context, through an OAA Regulatory Notice or Practice Tip; that an official Project Management Association does exist and how these definitions and actions would this relate to the auspices of that Association.

143 APPENDIX 5 Excerpt from the Summary of Matters of the September 15, 2009 Complaints Committee Meeting: Discussion re: Roles and Responsibilities of the architect in providing services other than architectural services to a client: Mr. Chuck Greenberg, Practice Advisor, joined the meeting at 10:57 a.m. Discussion ensued and the concerns expressed regarding the provision of project/construction management services on a project in addition to architectural services are recorded in point form as follows: validity of the notion that the Architects Act intended the practitioner to confine services only to that function and therefore maintain that status quo; the traditional role of the architect vs. current practice; in picking up a hammer or directing someone else to do so, the architect becomes the constructor and is therefore crossing the line; the reality that in this marketplace cost efficiencies outweigh the ideal of rendering only architectural services on a project; the need for the OAA to review the new reality; and if they endorse it, define the process and delineate the various responsibilities; the lack of resources (to support the new reality) at present; when architectural and project management services are rendered by the same source, it is better if a second person (other than the first architect) delivers the project management component; CCDC is now coming to grips with the new reality of dual functions and consequently the need for clear definitions of each function; defining the construction management role is easier than defining the project management role; conflict of interest definitions will take on a new meaning; the present practice of merely declaring an interest will not be sufficient; architects will have to be trained in project management if they are to perform that function; in offering dual services, if an architect ends his/her service at design stage, i.e. at the end of contract drawings, a list of constructor duties will have to be established by the OAA; courts have ruled that architects must carry on with architectural duties even with a project or construction manager being present; the work currently being done by the Practice Committee in this regard was discussed; the next step is for Council to decide how the OAA intends to proceed on this issue.

144 5.6.d

145 FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 5.6.d Memorandum To: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Thomas Thoma Vladimir Popovic Sheena Sharp Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Sean O Reilly Andre Sherman Michael Visser From: Ethics Committee: Jane Burgess Date: November, 2009 Subject: Adopting a Code of Ethics Background: In the June Meeting Council did not vote in favour of intending to adopting a Code of Ethics as a stand alone document but did vote for a draft Code of Ethics to be brought back to council..1 POSITIONING THE CODE OF ETHICS WITHIN OTHER GUIDING DOCUMENTS OAA Website Framework Values Act & Regulations Mandate To ensure that the profession remains responsive to the needs of society and relevant to its membership; and to undertake programs and initiatives in order to achieve the objectives of the Architects Act and support practice. Value 1 Everything we do communicates through design Value 2 Architects lead by designing for human purpose. The Act To establish, maintain and develop standrads of professional ethics among its members. Mission To represent, regulate, support and promote the profession of architecture in the interest of all Ontarians, and to lead the design and delivery of built form in the Province of Ontario. Value 3 The architect s best interest is the public s interest Value 4 The members are the association The Regulations A long list of Thou shall not do s Vision Building Leaders of Ontario Value 5 We are champions for Ontario s architects across their spectrum of needs Page 1 of 2

146 .2 PROPOSED CODE OF ETHICS ( Based on Manitoba Code/ OAA 2002/ & AIA combined Ethics & Code of Conduct) PROPOSED CODE OF ETHICS The Profession Architects maintain and advance the knowledge of the art and science of architecture. In so doing Architects shall thoughtfully consider and help constructively to conserve natural and cultural heritage of the community in which they are creating architecture. They shall strive to sustainably improve the environment and the quality of the life and habitat within. The Architect Must show a sense of responsibility, practice with integrity, judgement, business capacity and aesthetic and technical ability. Must have honesty of purpose which is above suspicion and as the professional advisor to the client must be unprejudiced. Must abide by this Code of Ethics. The Architect s Services To advise and counsel the client. To plan, design and offer such technical guidance as may be required to provide the end result sought by his client. The Architect and the Public Architects shall embrace the spirit and letter of the law governing their professional affairs and promote and serve the public interest. The Architect- Architect Relationship Architects shall co-operate in the best interest of the community. Architects shall respect the rights and recognize the contributions of their colleagues. The Architect Employer Shall conduct themselves toward other professional employees with fairness and good faith providing them with a suitable working environment to facilitate their professional development and the fostering of this Code. Source Modified from OAA 1999 plus AIA Modified from Manitoba Association of Architects Code of Ethics to deleted references to architect in the masculine only. Include abide by Code as per AIA Modified from Manitoba Association of Architects Code of Ethics to deleted references to architect in the masculine only. Modified from OAA 1999 & AIA Modified from Manitoba Association / OAA 2002 & AIA Modified OAA 2002 & AIA 3. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS Do the regulations need to be changed or can the Code simply be sent out and a box attached to annual payment (one time) saying I have read and agree to Code and then every intern and new member/member practice from there on in signs on? Action: Discussion and direction. Page 2 of 2

147 7.2

148 FOR FOR COUNCIL COUNCIL MEETING MEETING September November 24, 5, (open) (open) ITEM: ITEM: Memorandum To: Council Gerrie Doyle Jane Burgess Louis Cooke James Farrow Peter Gabor Paul Hastings Rob Newman Vladimir Popovic Andre Sherman Michael Visser Bill Birdsell Jerry Chlebowski David Craddock Pawel Fiett Brad Green Elaine Mintz Sean O Reilly Sheena Sharp Thomas Thoma From: James Farrow Senior Vice President and Treasurer Date: September 14, 2009 Subject: Pro-Demnity Insurance Company Quarterly Report Objective: For Council to receive the 2 nd Quarterly Report for 2009 from Pro-Demnity Insurance Company. Background: 1. OAA Council passed a motion at the January 22, 2004 meeting of Council that Council delegate the responsibility for receiving the Quarterly Reports of the Pro-Demnity Insurance Company to the Executive Committee, and report any concerns to Council. 2. Gerrie Doyle, President, and James Farrow, Senior Vice President and Treasurer reviewed the 2nd Quarterly Report for 2009 from Pro-Demnity Insurance Company. Gerrie and Jim do not have any concerns with the reports. Action: For information only 111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone Fax

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158 7.3

159 RAIC - Provincial / Territorial Roundtable on the various matters including Integration of International Architecture Graduates 8:30 AM - Friday, October 23, 2009 in Gateway Room Fort Garry Hotel, Winnipeg FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 7.3

160 AGENDA Time Item Responsible 8:30 AM Call to Order, Introduction of Facilitator Randy Dhar, President, RAIC 8:35 AM Introductions and Outline of Session Alain Rabeau 8:45 AM 1. Update on HRSDC funded projects 1.1 Revisions to the Canadian Educational Standard 1.2 BEFA Process 1.3 Syllabus Course Development Alain Rabeau 9:30 AM 2. Presentation on Competency Based Assessment David Edwards 10:30 AM Refreshment Break 10:50 3. Update - Foreign Credential Referral Office activities Corinne Prince-St- Amand 11:05 AM 4. Reforms to the Internship in Architecture Program Alain Rabeau Hillel Roebuck 12 NOON Light Lunch (served in the North Mezzanine) 1:00 PM 5. Next Steps and Funding for projects related to admission to the profession 2:00 PM 6. Practice Support 6.1 Report on CHOP 6.2 Identification of National Priorities for Practice Support 6.3 Guidelines for Determining Appropriate Fees for the Services of an Architect Alain Rabeau Jon Hobbs Graham Murfitt Jon Hobbs 2:45 PM Refreshment Break 3:00 PM 7. International Relations 7.1 Updates Architects Council of Europe NCARB TriNational APEC Architect Project UIA Other 7.2 Coordination / cooperation between CALA and RAIC Alain Rabeau 4:00 PM 8. Other Issues Approval of core courses by external providers Alain Rabeau 4:30PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM ADJOURNMENT Cocktail Reception and presentation sponsored by REED Construction Data Mark Casaletto Attachments: 1. List of Roundtable Attendees

161 7.4

162 FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 7.4 NEWSLETTER - OCTOBER 2009 October 2009 Volume 1, Issue 5 Garry Neil Executive Director/ Registrar x 229 gneil@oacett.org President s Message Issue Highlights: Report from the President 1 Report from the Executive Director 2 Costs to become Licensed Technologist OAA 4 Meet the New Board of Directors 5 New Members 5 Exam Results 6 New Licensed Technologist OAA 6 Member Feature 6 Trevor Onken Steps Down 7 I am honoured to be OAAAS President for the 2009/2010 term. For the last few years, I ve watched as OAAAS has slowly come to life. As President for the next year, I get to do more than watch and it is my intention to change some things. I invite you to join me in that process. As a practicing architect, I have seen the program unfold from the beginning. I ve seen it from different angles: as a member of the OAA practice committee, as an owner of a small architectural practice and as a member of the OAAAS Board. In June, the OAAAS Board established an ad-hoc committee of its OAA members to consider how our program relates to the architecture profession and to the OAA. We will be exploring issues such as these: What does the technology program mean to OAA, where does it fit in their vision of the future of the profession? Can we finally allow Licensed Technologists OAA to use a shorter form, such as LT OAA? Will the OAA consider reinstating an OAA award for architectural technology students? How can we encourage small practices to embrace the LT OAA designation and make it advantageous for those that do? Some of these issues are rather practical; others could have significant implications for the OAAAS program. If you have any input you would like to share with me on these or related questions, please contact me through dmailing@oacett.org. Regards, David Mailing B.Tech. (ARSC) M.Arch. OAA MRAIC

163 OAAAS Newsletter Page 2 of 7 Message from the Executive Director In lieu of a regular report, we thought you might be interested in reading some of the comments Garry Neil presented at the May 7, 2009 reception held by the OAAAS to celebrate the annual conference of the OAA. The reception was hosted and generously sponsored by the wonderful Harbourfront Centre Architecture Gallery. first I d like to tell you about my recent trip to Berlin. German Historical Museum Berlin, Germany One of the city s leading landmarks is the Reichstag, originally built in the 1880s. After the reunification of Germany, the Reichstag was rebuilt so that it could become once again the home of the German parliament. The bold design by British architect Sir Norman Foster was initially very controversial, because it added a modern glass dome. When you climb to the top, you re given a brochure that identifies the key buildings you see in your panoramic view of the city. In the brochure, you learn that the futuristic train station was designed by Meinhard von Gerkan, the ultra modern Chancellery Building that contrasts so vividly with the surrounding historic buildings was designed by Charlotte Frank. In the distance, you can see Frank Gehry s DZ Bank Building and i.m. Pei s exhibition hall addition to the German Historical Museum. That building was originally Berlin s arsenal, the oldest building on Museum Island, designed the 17 th Century by Johanne Nering. Perhaps even more interesting, you find out that the rather pedestrian television tower at the centre of old East Berlin, which is one of the iconic landmarks of the city, was designed by Fritz Deiter. Television Tower East Berlin, Germany In Berlin, the architect of every important building, whether 300 years old or just opened, is identified in the brochure or guidebook. Berlin clearly understands that its architecture is central to its identity and openly celebrates those who designed and built it. Toronto is so different. How many people know that John Andrews designed the CN Tower, or that Rod Robbie and Michael Allen designed the Skydome? I suspect you need to be a student of Toronto history, or at least a regular High Park jogger, to know John Howard was an early Toronto architect, or to know that Frank Darling designed the Royal Ontario Museum a century before Daniel Libeskind sketched the crystal. It s really only in the past few years, with the high profile Libeskind, Gehry and Alsop designs, that average Torontonians have begun to take note of the city s architecture

164 OAAAS NEWSLETTER Page 3 of 7 P 5 f 7 a city s buildings are so fundamental to its history, character and culture. and the people responsible for our built heritage. That s a pity since a city s buildings are so fundamental to its history, character and culture. This is why I m so happy to be in this wonderful gallery, where we can see how three Toronto architectural firms have creatively transformed some of Toronto s historic buildings into functional and modern spaces, which preserve our rich cultural heritage. I m also delighted to acknowledge that Harbourfront Centre is our partner in this event This session is not really about architects, it s about the technologists who are responsible for taking the architectural vision and making it a reality. What is said about men can be easily adapted for us; because it s true that behind every successful architect is a damn good technologist (or an army of them). We know from ROM s Michael Lee-Chin Crystal there can be significant changes between the vision s inception and its practical elaboration. The OAAAS program is designed for these damn good technologists, who seamlessly bridge these changes. Found Toronto E.R.A. Architects Inc. Take 2 Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects The Redemptorist Project: Studies in Risk, Conservation and Architectural Response Taylor Hazell Architects Ltd. The OAAAS program is innovative. The OAAAS program is innovative. It provides a way for technologists, for the first time virtually anywhere in the world, to become part of the broader architectural profession. It s not easy. The normal membership process involves joining OACETT; becoming certified as an Applied Science Technologist; documenting 7200 hours work experience across a range of categories, including Design and Construction Documents, Construction Administration and Office Management; attending the OAA Admission Course and; passing an examination administered by OAAAS. For a limited time, senior technicians and technologists can apply for advanced standing in OAAAS. In lieu of documenting work hours, a candidate with 12 years work experience, or a threeyear diploma with nine years experience, can demonstrate they have the necessary breadth of knowledge and skills by submitting information about ten projects they have worked on in their career. Their experience is confirmed by an interview. For more information on Harbourfront Centre s new Architecture Gallery and current exhibition, Building on History visit: ARCHITECTURE GALLERY From left to right: Wade Beitel, Kevin Hinchey, Roland Mech, Trevor Onken, Garry Neil, Jeremiah Gammond, Douglas Keith.

165 OAAAS Newsletter Page 4 of 7 While it s challenging to move through the OAAAS program it is worth it and is a good investment. At the end of the process, the candidate becomes a Licensed Technologist OAA, with the legal authority to design larger restaurants, and taller residences and low-rise apartment buildings. This translates into higher earning potential and improved mobility. And all it costs for those who achieve the certification is a dues payment to OAA that s only a fraction of what architects pay. OAA shares this fee with OACETT and OAA, so members enjoy the benefits of three organizations for a dues payment to only one of them. The OAAAS program is valuable for the province s architectural practices, because they can have more scope for deploying staff, and certainty that when they recruit someone who is a Licensed Technologist OAA, they are getting an employee who is dedicated, hard working and knowledgeable. Program Guide to become a Licensed Technologist OAA Advanced Standing Program Guide to become a Licensed Technologist OAA Breakdown of Costs to Become a Licensed Technologist OAA Please note that the following chart is only one of many fee structure variables for joining OAAAS. Regular Program Advanced Standing Notes Policy Program APPLICATION Fee: Associate Level OACETT fee OAAAS fee *52.50 N/A OACETT PPE Exam OACETT reclassification fee-a.sc.t From OACETT Associate to A.Sc.T Advanced Standing Application Fee *OAAAS application fee included here Annual Membership Fees OAAAS membership fee * *$84.00/yr x 3 yrs to finish program OACETT annual membership fee *$204.52/yr x 3 yrs to finish program Other Fees OAAAS reclassification fee N/A From Associate to Technologist OAAAS OAA Admissions Course OAA LT Exam OAA First Application for Licence Fee changes annually (OAA annual membership fee) TOTAL GST is included in fee amounts

166 OAAAS NEWSLETTER Page 5 of 7 P 5 f 7 Meet the OAAAS Board of Directors for 2009/2010 Term President: David M. Mailing, B.Tech. (ARSC), M.Arch., OAA, MRAIC Treasurer: Glenn Berst, A.Sc.T., OAAAS Members OAA Appointees: David Mills, B.Arch. OAA, MRAIC J. William Birdsell, B.E.S., B.Arch., OAA, MRAIC Sheena Sharp, B.E.S., M.Arch., OAA, MRAIC OACETT Appointees: Roland Mech, A.Sc.T, OAAAS, Licensed Technologist OAA, LEED A.P. Associate Richard Shanks, C.E.T., CBCO Cam Johnston, C.E.T From left to right: Garry Neil - OAAAS Executive Director / Registrar Gordon Masters OAA Director of Operations Sam DiGiandomenico - Director IETO/ OACETT Registrar Sean O Reilly- OAA Past President Past President: Trevor Onken, C.E.T. Meet the New Members of OAAAS We would like to welcome the following members who have joined to OAAAS in the past six months: Dragan Acimovic James Bell Mark Caruso Patrick Champoux Yan Cheng Lee Curtis Jorge Da Cunha Marc-Andre Demers Ted DuArte Pietro Fuoco Jeta Haxhimanka Kevin Hinchey Rachel Jeremiah-John Colin Majid Robert Miller Tusharkumar Patel Michael Perger Terry Ruszczak Gino Savo Sardaro Cliff Smith Tori Tsang Yi Xu Ying Zi Zheng

167 OAAAS NEWSLETTER Page 6 of 7 OAAAS Examination Results Congratulations to the following members who in June & July 2009 passed the OAAAS Licensed Technologist OAA examination, the final step to becoming a Licensed Technologist OAA: Dragan Acimovic Tim Finch Kevin Hinchey Terry Ruszczak Ryan Baker Pietro Fuoco Robert Prince Robert Spurgeon Luke Boonstra Jeremiah Gammond Jeffrey Parkinson Yi (Jerry) Xu Most Recent Licensed Technologists OAA Members Congratulations to fellow members for achieving Licensed Technologist OAA accreditation in September 2009: Jeffrey Eckensviller Jeffrey Parkinson Mark Primiani Robert Spurgeon OAAAS is just the ticket for Mark Primiani I was extremely pleased when I received my OAA licence. It is concrete recognition of the hard work I put in and I m convinced it will provide me with new opportunities in the near future, said Mark Primiani, one of our newly-minted Licensed Technologists OAA. Mark has opened his own firm, Arch- Tech Design Inc. since Along with his staff of seven, he provides clients with residential, commercial, retail, industrial and institutional architectural services. His firm also works with several well-established architectural practices and interior design firms in the preparation of design and construction documents. I joined OAAAS in 2004 because I had directly faced the limitations to the services I could provide to my clients, said Mark. I saw the Licensed Technologist OAA certification program as a viable tool that would enable me to pursue larger and more exciting projects, as well as to increase the range of services my firm could offer. Mark graduated in 1989, with honours, from Humber College s Applied Arts and Technology 3-year Architectural Design Technology Co-op Program. He worked with Turner Fleischer Architects Inc. for nine years before opening his own firm. I am grateful to Turner Fleischer because they gave me the invaluable opportunity to experience working in all aspects of the business and helped prepare me to set out on my own. In reflecting on the certification journey through OAAAS, Mark acknowledges it is time-consuming and difficult, but observes that the continuing education courses, lectures and examination requirements were both an opportunity and incentive to refresh his knowledge and stay ahead of the game. Mark values having been involved at the early stage of OAAAS because it gave him a chance to provide feedback and to help OAAAS improve the program for others. OAAAS has developed a great program and process, very clear and well organized. I m delighted to be a part of it, concluded Mark. Congratulations Mark, we look forward to seeing how your career continues to progress and flourish. Mark Primiani

168 OAAAS NEWSLETTER P 5 f 7 Page 7 of Garry Neil Executive Director/ Registrar Ext. 229 gneil@oacett.org Rommy Rodriguez A. OAAAS Administrator Ext. 265 rrodriguez@oacett.org Vera Alexeeva OACETT Admissions Coordinator Ext. 223 valexeeva@oacett.org Effective with the June 2009 annual meeting, OAAAS President Trevor Onken stepped down from the Board of Directors. Trevor had a long and distinguished involvement with the OAAAS stretching back to when the program was first being developed by OAA and OACETT. In acknowledging his efforts over many years, OACETT President David Saunders, C.E.T. stated the following: On behalf of OACETT and OAAAS I would like to express our gratitude for your tireless work as a member of the OAAAS board, treasurer, senior advisor and president. You have worked hard to ensure OAAAS meets the needs of the technician and technologists who work in architectural field in the province. You and your colleagues created a solid foundation for the future growth and development of OAAAS As the organization begins to achieve its full potential in the next few years, you can take pride in having played a leading and central role. Sincerely David Saunders FAX: Four Seasons Place Suite 404 Toronto, ON M9B 6H7 Trevor Onken receiving his President Gift, created by Toronto Glass Artist, David Thai Trevor Onken and David Mailing Launched in 2003 by the Ontario Association of Architects and the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists, OAAAS is a forum for establishing the education, experience and examination requirements, as well as scope of practice, for three categories of building designers: Associate OAAAS, Technologist OAAAS and Licensed Technologist OAA. The OAAAS program ensures that standards and qualifications are maintained and the public interest is protected.

169 7.5

170 Far-away partners drawn closer through technology - The Globe and Mail Page 1 of 2 FOR COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 2009 (open) ITEM: 7.5 Next Big Thing Far-away partners drawn closer through technology Architect Jack Diamond embraces high-tech tools but doesn't see the computer ever replacing pencil and paper when it comes to conceptual design Diane Jermyn Special to The Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Oct. 14, :55PM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Oct. 15, :50PM EDT I started in one room on my own some years ago, says Jack Diamond, 76, the founding principal of Diamond and Schmitt Architects Inc., established in Currently, we have an office of 170 people and work in six different countries. Our practise is to find the right partner in each city who has the same outlook, culture and approach. Renowned for award-winning designs including the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts in Toronto, Sidney Harman Hall in Washington, D.C., and the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, Mr. Diamond recently won an international competition to design the new Mariinsky Theatre in St. Petersburg in the Russian Federation. The Toronto-based firm maintains only one office but is able to work simultaneously with its far-away partners through technology Mr. Diamond describes as magical, such as the ability to transfer digital files of drawings from country to country in seconds, and video-conferencing. The Mariinsky theatre project in St. Petersburg was the turning point for the video-conferencing, says Mr. Diamond. A telephone conference can be very misleading. The tenor of a meeting is vastly different when you can see expression, face, attitude and body language. It's a huge advantage. The firm has done video-conferencing with Russia, Germany, the United States and France as well as within Canada. Language is an issue meetings are longer because everything has to be translated so everyone knows what's going on but with 29 languages spoken in the office and several Russian speaking architects, they have in-house help with translation. The important thing is that you can do it frequently, says Mr. Diamond. You don't have to parse it out like with travel budgets on a project. If you need to call, you can do it right away. It's almost as if they were here. Not quite, but almost. You can't stop and go have lunch together. Mechanical or logistical problems with the technology are not big issues for the firm, but one challenge is financial. It's hugely expensive, but it's a capital cost that repays itself, says Mr. Diamond. It's not just equipping each member of the team with hardware, but licensing everyone on all the different programs that are available is enormously expensive. 10/21/2009

171 Far-away partners drawn closer through technology - The Globe and Mail Page 2 of 2 While Mr. Diamond credits technology for revolutionizing his industry, he doesn't see the computer ever replacing pencil and paper when it comes to conceptual design. You have to see what you're designing, he says. It cannot be done abstractly and you can't do it on a screen. Coming from a manual tradition, Mr. Diamond was slow to look at the computer as a valuable tool until it had demonstrated its capability. But then the firm hired an experienced team and investigated what system it should employ, now they are continually upgrading. I was always open to new ideas, says Mr. Diamond, who credits the company's senior principals for leading the way. I think curiosity, investigation, willingness to entertain new thoughts and change one's view are the secrets of success. Mr. Diamond also considers the informal discussion between people in the company as key to the firm's esprit and exchange of ideas. But that became increasingly difficult as they grew larger and spread out between three floors and two adjoining buildings. One thing he did to overcome that was to have everyone in the office make soup twice a year, so there's soup every day but Thursdays. My controller said, You're gonna have these high-priced guys and women making soup?' says Mr. Diamond. And I said, Yes, including me. So when soup's up, people will go into the kitchen, get soup and chat.' You need to get them together. Copyright 2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. 10/21/2009

172 Print Article Page 1 of 2 Back to Hume: New green building calls for a slick skin Hume: New green building calls for a slic k skin October 12, 2009 Christopher Hume Richard Sommer definitely wants to put his money where his mouth is. But first he has to find that money. Freshly arrived from Harvard to become dean of the University of Toronto school of architecture, Sommer hopes to raise $40 million to remake the faculty's College St. premises. So far, he has $15 million. The idea, he explains, is to turn the 19th-century structure into "an exemplar of sustainable reuse of a building." As Sommer rightly argues, in the 21st century, the architect's role has moved beyond mere design. These days, practitioners must preside over multidisciplinary teams assembled to create buildings that work with, not against, a seriously compromised environment. That means constant struggles with the development and construction industries, which have failed to keep up with new realities. Artist's rendering of a planned green roof at the University of Toronto school of architecture. SUPPLIED PICTURE Though sustainable buildings generally cost more today, that's because they're exceptions. According to architect Nader Tehrani, whose firm, Office da, was chosen to design the new school, "Green building will not be more expensive 10 years from now." The reason, of course, is that by then, green buildings will be the norm. "We need to establish a platform of dialogue with the building industry," Tehrani adds, "to fight against standardization in architecture." And as Boston-based Office da's plans make clear, environmental responsibility and engaging architecture are not incompatible. Early drawings show the handsome neo-classical building wrapped in a steel-and-glass skin. An addition on top will include a green roof, a library and a small amphitheatre. "The roof will have a didactic function," Tehrani explains. "We want to create a new dialogue between old and new." Unlike the usual approach to heritage preservation in Toronto, which allows for interiors to be destroyed as long as a fa ade or two are saved. In this case, however, the emphasis will be on saving the inside and allowing changes to be made on the outside. Inside, teaching spaces will be recast as social spaces. The emphasis will be on flexibility, to take maximum advantage of the building's limited floor plates. "We've got to do something for the city and the country," Sommer says. "Considering we face an impending ecological Armageddon, we need to envision alternate futures." Before any of this can happen, Sommer must head out into his adopted city to take the pulse of the donor community. Though he might discover a certain fatigue, he remains optimistic. After all, architecture has emerged in the last decade or so as a subject about which everyone has an opinion. Though the focus has been on architecture as spectacle, the growing environmental crisis is forcing a shift in attitude. Toronto is no exception. It's worth noting that although sprawl continues unabated, some things are changing; for example, a rash of office towers either just completed or still under construction will all be LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified. 10/20/2009

173 Print Article Page 2 of 2 "There's a little bit of self-flagellation going on here," observes Sommer, who quickly adds that Toronto has a lot to recommend it, especially when compared with many cities in the United States. "The voltage needs to be turned up in areas of the city," he argues, "including the waterfront." On the other hand, Sommer has nothing but praise for Mayor David Miller's Tower Renewal Project. Though too recent to have had concrete results yet, the idea is to rehabilitate Toronto's vast stock of highrise residential buildings. Dating from the 1950s, '60s and '70s, these aging slabs are energy hogs built at a time when no one thought twice about sustainability. Now we know better, but the damage has been done. Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@ thestar.ca. 10/20/2009

174 Story Tools Font size: Photo visibility: Hide All Show All And the trophies go to ultra-modern homes, kitchens with knockout colours, green renovators on a mission and a young builder with a shiny emerald and diamond ring BY SHEILA BRADY, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN OCTOBER 24, 2009 Ottawa architect Chris Simmonds won the prestigious People's Choice Award at the 2009 Housing Design Awards for this ultramodern home on Lake Ontario in Mississauga. Photograph by: Peter Fritz, supplied photo The sedate National Gallery of Canada was shaken to its concrete foundations last Saturday by a booming soundtrack from Star Wars as big builders, green renovators and grinning architects claimed honours at the Housing Design Awards. It was a night of multiple wins, a return of mainstream builders, ultra-modern homes, knockout colours, rare beef and a shiny emerald and diamond ring at the 26th Annual Design Awards organized by the Greater Ottawa Home Builders' Association and sponsored by the Citizen. Stephen Henry watched quietly from the back of the rotunda as his father, John Henry, a veteran custom builder and owner of Terra Nova Building Corporation, collected three hefty glass trophies for two modern homes and a cosy, wood-lined study created for a former high-flying politico. The younger Henry, fighting a rotten head-cold, had his own surprise: A diamond and emerald engagement ring for his longtime girlfriend, Erin Doak.

175 "It was a good night for Terra Nova and for me," says Henry, 28. "It was a night of meaning and the ring was not going to stay in my pocket." Henry had been planning the surprise since July, designing the ring on the quiet and then proposing on a second-floor balcony as winners celebrated below. Henry had earned a degree in telecommunications, but decided to change direction two years ago, joining the family firm and shadowing his father to learn the business. "This business is really tangible," says Henry. "You can touch and feel everything and see the fruits of your labour almost immediately." Saturday's gala was all about showing off and rewarding top designs across the city. For John Henry, it's been more than two decades since he has submitted entries to the annual gala, partly because he was busy teaming up with leading architects to build custom homes from the Kanata Lakes Rockeries to Rockcliffe Park. "It's humbling to share the same venue with a lot of talented people," he said after winners in 39 wildly-varied categories collected their trophies. Henry teamed up with architect Barry Hobin on a magnificent stone and glass home on the Ottawa River and with former Ottawa architect Richard Limmert for a low-slung, white stucco and glass home on the edge of Kanata Lakes. Then there was the luxurious, book-lined home office with a traditional desk and a pair of oversized easy chairs that was designed for a former politician. It's easy to imagine quiet conversations while looking out over a green garden. The senior Henry's career path reveals the close connections in the city's housing industry, which is dominated by a handful of large builders and spiced up with the talents of smaller, customized operations. Through the years, Henry has been the building smarts while working with architects David Mailing, a past winner, and architect Christopher Simmonds. Simmonds, who has scored in the past, this year earned four trophies, including the prestigious People's Choice for a 6,000-square-foot home with curving walls and massive windows overlooking Lake Ontario and the CN Tower in downtown Toronto. The Mississauga house racked up the most votes among all of the 119 entries from visitors to the Ottawa Home and Design Show earlier this fall. Gerhard Linse, a talented design and building consultant, scored four wins for customized bathroom and kitchen renovations and the $500,000-plus renovation of a traditional stone home in the Glebe, prompting Ron Desjardins, the emcee for the night to quip: "You can buy most homes in the city for less then that." And while the big renovations and custom homes drew admiration, there were multiple wins for Minto, the city's largest builder, for an affordable condo in Centrepointe and a two-storey suburban home, the Fraser, in Barrhaven covering 2,000 square feet -- the size that most young families buy into, setting down roots to raise their children. Tartan general manager Ian Nicol was juggling three trophies for suburban triumphs, including a low-

176 rise condo, the Java, located in the Stittsville community of Jackson Trails, an appealing stone and brick two-storey semi-detached home in Findlay Creek off Bank Street, and the showy Whitney, a big single home, also located in Findlay Creek. Holitzner beat out Campanale and Phoenix Homes to win with its well-finished Stittsville single in the category reserved for homes ranging between 2,001 and 2,499 square feet. Richcraft, one of the city's leading builders, scored two honours, teaming up with Potvin Kitchens and its senior designer Daniel Gauthier for a shocking green kitchen and detailed tile work in the bathroom of his Besserer Street condo. Potvin and Richcraft then worked together on the builder's Kanata Lakes model, the Majestic, earning honours for a creamy white and chocolate-brown kitchen. The Majestic also beat out Cardel and Tartan to take top honours for a home between 2,600 and 3,499 square feet. John MacDougall and Peter Splinter of Uniform Urban Developments couldn't stop smiling after winning Project of the Year for a collection of family homes on Carsdale Avenue in Rockcliffe Park and a second trophy for The Avenues in Westboro. Barry Hobin collaborated with Uniform on both projects, delivering his popular styling of clean, square shapes and lots of glass. It was also a night for energy-smart designs and a sign that even the largest builder recognizes the housing industry is going to have to change and protect our natural resources. Minto earned its third trophy for the Green LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Home of the Year for its Equilibrium Demonstration House in Manotick, an unassuming Cape-Cod design that can operate without leaving an energy footprint or can actually generate energy, selling it back to the grid. Minto has plans to build an Energy Star community around the Equilibrium house, but currently the proposal is deadlocked as the village is up in arms about expansion moving too quickly. Minto has been a strong supporter of LEED building in its Toronto condos and offices in Ottawa and there are plans for a LEED community on the western edge of Kanata. On a smaller scale, Steve Barkhouse proved you can be recognized for going green creatively (see A deep shade of green on today's Resale front on E1). The popular builder, who has won the renovator honours in the past, this year won Green Renovator of the Year and honours for Housing Detail, thanks to an innovative green renovation he did on Pretoria Avenue where the exterior was transformed into an artist's canvas. Ottawa architect Linda Chapman also turned some faces green with envy, teaming up with Rex Engel to win Green Home of the Year for a sunny brick bungalow with innovative skylights that draw big bolts of light into the living room. The night was also sprinkled with awards for sumptuous kitchens and pampering bathrooms from industry heavyweights Deslaurier Custom Cabinets and A. Potvin Construction. (The newest trends in bathroom design will be featured in Homes on Oct. 31 and kitchen trends in early November). At the end of the night and the final musical blast, the National Gallery settled back into silence and participants were left with a better understanding of a local housing and design industry that is

177 bubbling back from the economic dumpster of last fall. Sheila Brady is the Citizen's Homes editor. Reach her at Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

178 Story Tools Font size: Changing the way Ottawa sees itself The architect of the city s new convention centre hopes to evoke a reaction with its provocative, modern design while respecting its history and location. Patrick Dare explains. BY PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN OCTOBER 11, 2009 OTTAWA The late 20th century gave Ottawa a concrete bunker for a convention centre. The early 21st century is to give the city a centre that is all about glass, openness and a provocative, modern design that aims to be respectful of its distinguished architectural neighbours. Richard Brisbin, the architect of Ottawa s new convention centre being built on Colonel By Drive, says the building is designed to be both functional and an iconic place for Canada s capital. He says it is to be a place that tells Ottawa s story. What we aspire to is that, if the design of the new Ottawa Convention Centre is successful, we won t just change the way the world sees us. Hopefully it will change the way Ottawa sees itself, says Brisbin, of Brisbin Brook Beynon Architects. He says the unusually open design of the building was driven by the needs of convention delegates and the desire to reach out to the capital landmarks within view and a short walk away: The Rideau Canal, the Château Laurier, Parliament Hill and the National Arts Centre. The building is meant to let visitors easily see how to get inside, then how escalators or walking ramps can take them between the four floors. It is designed, says Brisbin, as a building that would explain itself. The curved front glass skin designed using the latest architectural software reaches toward the canal and is meant to give people in the building some of the most striking views in the city, a constant panorama of views, Brisbin says. The architectural reach of the seven-storey structure has presented some problems. The road in front of the building is losing a lane and the 30-metre no-development heritage buffer around the canal is encroached upon. But Brisbin says the new building is all about respect for the canal a UNESCO world heritage site and connecting with it. Unlike the old Ottawa Congress Centre with its weird concrete steps and entrance, this building s ground floor will be roughly level with the canal and pedestrians will be encouraged to walk over to it. Brisbin likens the glass skin to a wrapping or a veil, one that comes off at night. He acknowledges some buildings featuring large amounts of glass have had trouble in the past. But he says glass materials and the engineering know-how for such structures have seen huge advances in the last decade and he is confident that snow, ice and Ottawa s hugely variable temperatures

179 should not create problems. Brisbin Brook Beynon Architects have designed buildings and developments around the world and across Canada, including GM Place in Vancouver, Toronto s Metro Hall and the Metropolitan Life Building, as well as Ottawa s World Exchange Plaza. Brisbin, who works out of an office in the ByWard Market, says he looked at convention centres and other city architectural landmarks around the world as he thought about the Ottawa project. The one that impressed him the most is downtown Pittsburgh s David L. Lawrence Convention Center, which opened in It has a striking design and is much larger than Ottawa s new building. But Brisbin says he was especially impressed at how the centre pays homage to the city s industrial past, its river and many bridges, while also asserting through its contemporary look Pittsburgh s future as a service-economy city. So with the Ottawa building, Brisbin, too, is acknowledging the city s history and identity, just as he did in designing the new Ottawa Airport terminal, with visual references to the three rivers that meet in the city. The convention building features will include chandeliers that resemble log booms and century-old logs from the bottom of the Ottawa River that will be milled and made into a wall coverings. The shape of the glass exterior will resemble a tulip petal in honour of Ottawa s historic affection for spring tulips. The idea is to give visitors a distinct visual memory of Ottawa and to express the city s pride in its history as a lumber and political centre. The design of Ottawa s new convention centre with 192,000 square feet of useable space has impressed a lot of community leaders who have been briefed on the project. This includes the National Capital Commission, whose design advisory committee and board of directors. The views that will be created, both to the building and out of the building, are going to be incredible, said François Lapointe, executive director of capital planning at the NCC. It s an opportunity to create a new symbol in the capital. It s quite an interesting design. Lapointe says the centre will also serve an important role hosting events where groups of up to 8,000 can meet, something downtown Ottawa has lacked. Patrick Kelly, president of the Ottawa Convention Centre, says the design of the new centre, which is to open in 2011, is giving staff an advantage in selling the city to convention organizers, who have quite a collection of butt-ugly centres to choose from across North America. Bookings so far include a national political party convention, though Kelly won t say which one. Brisbin says he knows this design is reasonably dramatic and unconventional, but he is pleased that both the convention centre board and the NCC are keen on contemporary design, rather than an echo of an earlier era of architecture. Ottawa has historically been a bit timid, said Brisbin. Here we are respectful of our neighbours, but different.

180 I hope it evokes some kind of reaction. Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

181 Story Tools Font size: Photo visibility: Hide All Show Top Only Show All A deep shade of green A reno of a funky Glebe home, the makeover of a leaky two-storey in Westboro to a high-performing Cape Cod in Manotick prove ecosmarts are spreading BY BY PATRICK LANGSTON, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN OCTOBER 24, 2009 Artist Christopher Griffin etched the concrete of his Glebe home, winning accolades from the Greater Ottawa Home Builders' for housing details. Renovator Steve Barkhouse earned green honours for reno of the former shop. Photograph by: Julie Oliver, The Ottawa Citizen, The Ottawa Citizen When a century-old, former corner store wins a green housing award, you suddenly realize how many buildings are candidates for Kermit's favourite colour: Bright, eco-friendly, energy-smart green. The former neighbourhood store, which sits on the northern edge of the Glebe and is now a combination home and small business, shared the green renovation award with Christopher Simmonds' makeover of a leaky, 60-year-old home at the Ottawa Housing Design Awards which were held last weekend. Boasting everything from solar hot water heating to eco-friendly cement and recycled wood cladding, the Glebe conversion also won honours for best housing detail award. Owner and artist Christopher Griffin spent hours etching wonderful graphics of plants and prehistoric animals onto the exterior walls of his Pretoria Avenue property. "It was a tough project," says Steve Barkhouse, owner of Amsted Construction and co-ordinator of the makeover. It was a good night for Barkhouse, who was also named Renovator of the Year. "It's an old, old house. Nothing was straight in it," says Barkhouse, who also scored green hours last year. He had praise for his client's close involvement in the project: "They had a vision that was so exciting. They could see exactly what they wanted."

182 The green reno trophy was one of four green categories this year, double the number in There were no entries in the green development category for subdivision or new condos, but that should change as more projects come on stream. Ottawa architect Linda Chapman won the green home award for a 2,800-square-foot customized bungalow. Minto's Inspiration eco-home, a green demo house built as part of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's EQuilibrium program, was named LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) home of the year. The number of green entries -- six -- was small. That, says the association's executive director John Herbert, is a matter of the association still struggling to define green categories and builders and buyers still hesitating to clamber aboard the environmental bandwagon. "Green is a new frontier for... both us and the builders." On the other hand, Herbert points to Ottawa builders, including Tartan and Tamarack as among the first in Canada to commit to meeting strict Energy Star standards a few years back, designing and selling Energy Star communities at Jackson Trails in Stittsville and Findlay Creek off Bank Street. Urbandale is also committed to building green and Minto is picking up the energy standards for their homes division. Minto is already strongly committed to the LEED program in office buildings in Ottawa and condos in Toronto. "We have a real cutting edge group of folks here in the green category," says Herbert. The one-time corner store on Pretoria Avenue underscores Herbert's words. The building's EnerGuide rating jumped from 60 to 72 (ENERGY STAR is 80) thanks to upgraded insulation and other improvements. There's a new cedar deck (the owners, fearing environmental hazards, eschewed pressure-treated wood), and a green, first-floor canopy planted with sedums offers a restful view from the upper-storey windows while shielding entranceways from the elements. The building uses green Bullfrog Power. Where there once was asphalt, native plants watered by rain barrels now thrive. "It's a quirky building with additions put on over the years," says owner Griffin fondly. He and his wife Oresta Korbutiak invested about $200,000 in the renovation. You can understand judges' difficulty picking green winners in the apples-and-oranges situation pitting the Pretoria home against Christopher Simmonds' remake of a 1940s home in Westboro. While that white stucco home's EnerGuide rating shot from 58 to 80, thanks in part to substantial insulation upgrades, the makeover was quite different. Weather stripping, a new roof overhang to keep the summer sun at bay, flooring made from renewable cork, and a heat recovery ventilator for better air quality feature high on the home's environmental check list. Simmonds also built a bright new kitchen and sunroom and landscaped the backyard with flagstone terraces and a pond, winning an award for renovations/additions $350,000 to $499,000 in the process.

183 The clients, avid cooks and entertainers, use the new backyard to grow fresh vegetable and herbs. "The house was typical of the period, where they didn't pay much attention to connecting it to the garden," says Simmonds, who recently won three awards from the Ontario Home Builders' Association. "Making somewhere more livable is part of green." Simmonds and Barkhouse clearly went the extra mile that, commented one judge, distinguishes a winner when green building projects almost invariably tout features like low-voc paints and low-flow faucet's. Linda Chapman also sprinted the extra distance for her green home of the year trophy. Flooded with warm, western light thanks to a bank of slightly sloped clerestory windows, the bungalow was built for a busy professional couple in an older neighbourhood. It's insulated to R-2000 standards and incorporates ICF (insulated concrete form) construction, a geothermal heating/cooling system, a three-foot roof overhang as protection from the summer sun, dimmable pot lights and artificial turf made of recycled plastic. Construction waste was recycled as was an existing, older house on the site: it was moved to become home to new owners. Chapman's design avoids a green pitfall mentioned by one judge: eco-friendly homes that look like shoe boxes. Built around a central garden, the U-shaped home blends a traditional bungalow form with minimalist contemporary lines to satisfy multiple tastes. "The clients were focused on energy efficiency, but also aesthetics and the light effect," says Chapman. To all this, add Minto's LEED Platinum Inspiration home in Manotick. A net-zero building that produces as much energy as it consumes thanks to solar powered systems and ultra-energy efficiency, the house is awash in green features, from rainwater collection for the toilets to a recycling centre built into the kitchen island. For Ottawa's housing sector, green clearly means go. Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen Previous Next

184 Famed architect runs afoul of regulator - The Globe and Mail Page 1 of 2 Famed architect runs afoul of regulator FRANCES BULA VANCOUVER Globe and Mail Update Published on Friday, Aug. 15, :15PM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, Mar. 31, :30PM EDT Arthur Erickson has been called Canada's most famous architect and the first to put Canadian architecture on the world map. But he is no longer allowed to call himself an architect, according to his home province's regulatory body. Or at least not when it comes to buildings currently going up around Vancouver with his name attached to them. The Architectural Institute of B.C. has sent him a warning letter saying he needs to clarify what he's doing because local marketing and news articles about several prominent buildings under way make it sound as though he is working as an architect. "This is a very dear and honoured member of the profession whom we want to celebrate. But he's not entitled to provide architectural services without being registered. And he's not," said Jerome Marburg, the AIBC's director of legal affairs and licensing. "We can't make an exception for Arthur because he's Arthur." But that rule enforcement has flabbergasted Mr. Erickson, his family, his fans and the man who markets much of his work. "It's outrageous," Mr. Erickson says. "I don't know what they're doing. It doesn't make sense. I'm not calling myself something I'm not." Mr. Erickson hasn't been an AIBC member since 2005, when he resigned after refusing to comply with the institute's new requirement that all architects do 18 hours a year of continuing-education courses. Mr. Erickson has designed the internationally admired Simon Fraser University, Robson Square law courts, and Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver, along with homes, libraries, commercial buildings and more. He has been made an honorary member of the AIBC, but that doesn't give him the full rights of a registered member. That means he, or others, can't claim he's an architect or providing architectural services on any current projects. The warning has prompted a flurry of tense communication in recent weeks between the AIBC and the members of Mr. Erickson's family acting for their 84-year-old uncle. "To suggest that Arthur Erickson is deliberately misrepresenting himself as an architect is like suggesting that Einstein was not a physicist in his later years. Arthur Erickson has been an architect 10/21/2009

185 Famed architect runs afoul of regulator - The Globe and Mail Page 2 of 2 for 50 years and he cannot help it if people continue to call him one, regardless of the AIBC's opinion on the matter," says a statement they sent to The Globe and Mail. However, Chris Erickson said he and his sister, Emily, who are directors of the Arthur Erickson Corporation, have also moved to eliminate any inferences that Mr. Erickson is working as an architect. On the Arthur Erickson website, he's now called an "internationally celebrated designer." Mr. Erickson says he believes what he does is still architectural work. For the past several years, he has worked in collaboration with his business partner Nick Milkovich. He calls their work "a discussion between two architects and we agree on the result." Chris Erickson said letters have been sent to the people marketing buildings his uncle has been associated with to ask them to change their wording. But Mr. Marburg said the situation is creating confusion for the public about what exactly they are getting when they buy into a building that has Arthur Erickson's name attached to it. And, he said, the AIBC has done its best to clarify that without being antagonistic. "We've spent a great deal of time dealing with Arthur and those close to him to find an honourable way through this." Special to The Globe and Mail Copyright 2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. 10/21/2009

186 Print Article Page 1 of 2 Back to Hume: A brilliant beauty built to last Hume: A brilliant beauty built to last October 24, 2009 Christopher Hume If the new Koerner Hall sounds as good as it looks, it will be the best concert venue in Toronto, hands down. The facility, which opened two weeks ago at the Royal Conservatory of Music's Bloor St. complex, is one of the best things to happen to Toronto architecture in some time. The designer, Marianne McKenna of KPMB, one of the city's most accomplished practices, has pulled off a triumph. Of course, the job has taken time. When the conservatory initially hired KPMB nearly 20 years ago, the task was to prepare a master plan for redevelopment of the site. That document was delivered in The first order of business after that was to restore the late 19th-century brick building that has been the conservatory's home for decades. That landmark heap was built in 1881 by William McMaster as a Baptist college for women, a fitting monument of 19th-century Toronto, then known as the City of Churches. The architect was Henry Langley, one of the most eminent practitioners of his time. Koerner Hall at Royal Conservatory of Music at 273 Bloor St. W. seats 1,140. RICHARD LAUTENS/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO Over the years, however, the master plan was altered to economic realities. The original scheme envisioned a small concert hall suited to the needs of music students. It would have had less than 850 seats, an awkward size for a venue that would have to pay its own way. By the time the dust finally settled this month, the conservatory had acquired a 1,135-seat hall as well as practice studios, a cafe and superb public spaces that take full advantage of the architectural play between old and new. Indeed, it is this dialogue that informs the complex and makes it so compelling. There are small areas through the five-storey building where a person can sit next to a slate-shingled dormer window. One still has a bird's nest beneath its overhang, an exquisite detail in a project full of lovely touches. Koerner Hall, however, is brand new. Organized in the traditional shoebox configuration, it has three balconies, two devoted to seating, the third to a technical catwalk. Finished mostly in oak, the room has none of that washed-out Ikea look that makes some concert venues seem so precious. "We wanted it to be rough and durable," McKenna explains. "It has to be able to take a beating. It was built to last." Best of all, perhaps, the place imparts a feeling of intimacy and closeness. Unlike, say, Roy Thomson Hall, which has never been able to provide a sense of connection between audience and performer, in Koerner the two are cosily ensconced in the same room. On the other hand, there's nothing ostentatious about the hall; it is designed for comfort, not luxury. And yet it manages this delicate feat without lapsing into the mall-aesthetic that has become the fate of many contemporary cultural facilities. One needn't go far to see examples. The brilliance of the project lies not just in the organization of the big elements, but also in the way they relate to the smallest aspects of the site. McKenna has assembled them with apparent ease; one space flows into the next effortlessly. The lobbies, which are stacked over three floors, allow visitors to move from the hall to other parts of the building. Along the way, we encounter one of Toronto's great new spaces; carved out of what was the basement of McMaster Hall, it is now an open, light-filled area where people can sit and eat a meal. It's also where Koerner meets the older building to which it is attached. The back wall of the former is now an interior fa ade, its three-coloured masonry surfaces fully revealed and now accessible. The results are quite 10/27/2009