Untitled-2 [] · Title: Untitled-2 Author: dphelan Created Date: 12/2/2004 9:54:44 PM

ALS News • 1www.alsa.ab.caJune 2001

The Driving Forcerequested this page

(repeat Peerless has)

2 • ALS News www.alsa.ab.ca June 2001

Sharplinerequested this page

(repeat)


TABLE OF CONTENTS

5 President’s Message 7 Councillor’s Forum 9 Editor’s Notes13 Letters to the Editor17 Association Notes

Who Owns a Theoretical Road Allowance?20 Facilitating Electronic Commerce23 The Need for a Statutory

Boundary Tribunal in Alberta25 Book Review

The Mystery of Capital

27 SPR Director’s Message29 SPR Corner

Metal Detectors Can’t Stand Alone31 Guardpost32 Alberta Sustainable Resource Development34 CCLS Bulletin37 Newsprint

Garage Fiasco Lands Entrepreneur in Jail38 Discipline Decisions43 U of C News47 ASSMT Notes

ALALALALALSSSSSnewsnewsnewsnewsnewsJUNE 2001 VOL. 30-2

Editor Advertising and ProductionBrian E. Munday: [email protected] Sharon D. Stecyk: [email protected] dates for submission of material to ensure printing are as follows: February 15th, June 1st,September 1st, and December 1st. Opinions expressed by the editor or individual writers are notnecessarily endorsed by the Council of the Alberta Land Surveyors' Association. Original articlesmay be reprinted with due credit given to the source and with permission of individual writers orwhere no writer is indicated, with the permission of the Editor. ALS News is published by theAlberta Land Surveyors' Association for circulation to the Association Membership. Address allcorrespondence to:

Alberta Land Surveyors' Association2501, 10004 - 104 Avenue — Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0K1

Tel: 780-429-8805 or 1-800-665-2572Fax: 780-429-3374 [email protected] www.alsa.ab.ca

CANADA POST PUBLICATION #1473905

Jasper 200Jasper 200Jasper 200Jasper 200Jasper 20011111

Photo CaptionsTop: Larry and Judy Pals with their twosons Ryan and ColinMiddle: Dawn Phelan, Mark Kocher,Sharon StecykBottom left: Army MacCrimmonBottom right: Ken and Marge Allred

Look for more photosthroughout ALS News.

PresidentG.K. (Ken) Allred

CouncillorsD.J. (David) HagenJ.G. (Jim) Halliday

D.B. (Dave) HigginsD.J. (David) McArthurN.R. (Ross) WoolgarS.T. (Steve) YanishPublic Members

E. (Ernie) Isley (Council)L.A. (Lawrence) Kluthe(Practice Review Board)

Past PresidentL.M. (Larry) PalsVice President

D.R. (Dave) McWilliamSecretary Treasurer

M.E. (Monroe) KinlochRegistrar

J.E. (Jerry) RasmusonExecutive Director

B.E. (Brian) Munday


Ensight(repeat)

requested this page


by Ken Allred, ALSpresident’spresident’spresident’spresident’spresident’smessage

Thank you all for the confi-dence that you have shown in electingme to serve as your president for theupcoming year. It is clear that it isgoing to be a busy year for theAlberta Land Surveyors’ Associationand for Alberta Land Surveyors alike.

Council has already held twomeetings, as well as the annualSteering Committee meeting, and hascommenced dealing with all itemsensuing from the Annual Meeting. Iwould like to deal briefly with two ofthose issues in this report—first, theissue of the location of future annualmeetings and second, the issue ofhow to make our annual meetingsmore productive.

Both the Executive Committee andCouncil dealt with the issue of thevenue for future annual meetings attheir first meetings. The motion undernew business asked Council toconsider having all future meetings atthe Jasper Park Lodge. At the time,the ALSA was contractually commit-ted to hold the 2002 meeting at theCrowne Plaza—Chateau Lacombe inEdmonton, the 2003 meeting at theHyatt in Calgary and the 2004 meet-ing at the Rimrock in Banff. The 2005meeting was already scheduled forthe Jasper Park Lodge.

Council, in its deliberations, consid-ered the motion under new business,the existing commitments and thewishes of the membership as ex-pressed in two previous question-naires. The previous questionnaireswhich had been circulated on differ-ent occasions over the past number ofyears were virtually tied on whetherthe Annual Meeting should be held inresort areas or in the urban centres.Council, on several previous occa-sions, adopted a schedule wherebymeetings would be held approximatelyhalf of the time in resort centres andhalf of the time in urban centres.

After considerable debate, Councilconfirmed the location of the 2002and 2003 meetings to be in Edmontonand Calgary respectively and can-celled the Banff venue in favour ofJasper. Council also established that

...let’s not be afraid ofchange! And then again, let’snot change for the sake ofchange!

the 2006 meeting will be at the JasperPark Lodge.

In coming to the decision to con-tinue to meet in the urban centres forthe next two years, Council felt that,in fairness to members who becauseof cost, time, or whatever reasonsfavour the urban centres, that thiswas a good balance. The urbancentres also offer many social andpublic relations opportunities that arenot available in the resort centres. Avariety of venues may, in the long run,be more advantageous for the mem-bership and the Association as awhole.

With regard to making our annualmeetings more productive, I think weall agree that, when recommendationsfrom Council come to the AnnualMeeting, they need to have beenreviewed in detail for logic, grammarand legal consequences. Recommen-dations need to be introduced and soldto the membership by the committeechair or a designated spokesperson. Itis often a long time between thecommittees’ deliberations and theAnnual Meeting and it is important foreveryone to be reminded of the needfor the recommended policy, thehistory behind it and the pros and consof its adoption. The Annual Meetingshould not be wasted on word-smithing. That should all be donebefore it reaches either Council or theAGM. Both Council and the membersat the AGM should be dealing withpolicy issues rather than details. Ifrecommendations are not ready forratification by the membership,

Council must send them back tocommittee for further vetting. Yourtime is important and recommenda-tions must come to the AGM after allof the details and alternatives havebeen examined. There should be nosurprises at the Annual Meeting.

Council has spent some timedeliberating on this issue and iscurrently preparing some guidelinesfor committees and Council to followwhich should ensure that recommen-dations that come to annual meetingsare well thought out, properly draftedand well presented to the membershipat the Annual Meeting and in prepara-tion for the Annual Meeting. Hope-fully, these guidelines will assisteveryone concerned in making ourmeetings more meaningful andproductive.

Our Association appears to spendmore time on business than any of oursister associations. I don’t know ifthat is good or bad but I do know thatwasting your time at an annualmeeting is not productive. I would liketo see our AGMs spent on productive,interesting and enjoyable issueswhether they be business, educationalor social. Your ideas and suggestionswould be appreciated—let’s not beafraid of change! And then againlet’s not change for the sake ofchange!


Leica(repeat)


by Dave McWilliam, ALScouncillor’scouncillor’scouncillor’scouncillor’scouncillor’sforum

Over the years, I have seenmany attempts to reduce or eveneliminate the Manual of StandardPractice. However, I wonder if itwould be in our best interests to do so.At the Annual General Meeting inJasper this past April, as with almostevery AGM I have attended in my 23years as an Alberta Land Surveyor, ourstandards of practice were the sourceof some very good debate. I believethat an understanding of the history ofthe current Manual of Standard Prac-tice is an integral part of deciding itsfuture.

Desirable survey practices andprocedures have been formally docu-mented for well over 100 years inWestern Canada. The Dominion LandSurveys Act, the Manual of Instruc-tions for the Survey of CanadaLands (with Supplement), the SurveysAct (and Regulations), the GoodPractice Resolutions, the Manual ofGood Practice and the Manual ofStandard Practice are but a fewexamples of such documents. Acommon thread to all of them is thatthey contain what the legislators andthe surveyors of the day considered tobe good practices in surveying. Someof these documents also includedinstructions that guided the surveyorsof the day in the methods of survey touse in carrying out their daily work. Inturn, those methods became relevantinstructions of re-establishment insubsequent editions of some of thesedocuments.

Over the years, information has alsomigrated from one document to an-other. A recent example was themigration of the Regulations under theSurveys Act into our Manual of Stand-ard Practice before the Regulationswere “sunsetted.”

To understand the use and impor-tance of the Manual of StandardPractice to the surveying profession inAlberta, one must understand thecontext in which this document wasdeveloped for use by a self-governingprofession such as ours.

The roots of the Manual of StandardPractice lie in the Good Practice

Resolutions—a collection of state-ments first adopted by the ALSAmembership at the 1958 AGM. TheGood Practice Resolutions wereintended to document what thesurveyors of the day considered tobe the good practices to be em-ployed when performing legalsurveys in Alberta. The collectionand adoption of these statementscontinued until April 20, 1989, whenthe Good Practice Resolutions wererescinded in favor of the firstManual of Good Practice.

The Manual of Good Practicecontinued to evolve until April 25,1996, when it was renamed theManual of Standard Practice. Thethought behind the name changewas that it had come to be acceptedas a collection of the standards ofour profession—standards that we,as professionals, believe reflect aresponsible and professional way topractice land surveying and that allof our members should aspire toreach.

In addition, the Manual of Stand-ard Practice has become a recog-nized and authoritative resource toothers outside the profession. TheRegulations that were attached tothe Surveys Act have been inte-grated into the Manual at the requestof the Crown, as have the require-ments of Public Lands. These arethe standards and expectationssociety has of Alberta Land Survey-ors and they have entrusted us withthe privilege of safekeeping theirstandards because of their respectfor our profession and the way we

handle our self-governance. Thisrespect has been earned through thehard work and professional commit-ment of land surveyors over the yearsand we need to continue to work hardto keep it.

Some have said that the Manual ofStandard Practice is too restrictiveand rigid and removes the profession-alism from land surveyors. Part A ofour Manual says “all standards in thisManual should be followed by theAlberta Land Surveyor.” This state-ment may appear to support theperceived restriction. Nevertheless, ifthe Manual reflects good surveypractices, how can an Alberta LandSurveyor justify deviating from it?

The introduction in both the Manualof Standard Practice and the Manualof Good Practice state, in general,that these standards are not cast instone. However, the onus is on theAlberta Land Surveyor to justifydeviating from the documented goodsurvey practices in the Manual infavour of equal or better surveypractices in a specific circumstance.The Manual should be used as aresource to assist the Alberta LandSurveyor to practice with integrity andcompetence, which is exactly theobjective of every previously men-tioned historical document.

The last paragraph in the introduc-tion to our current Manual states:“There is also an onus on the AlbertaLand Surveyor to improve the Manualand to participate in keeping itcurrent...he has an obligation to bring

...the onus is on the AlbertaLand Surveyor to justifydeviating from the documentedgood survey practices in theManual in favour of equal orbetter survey practices in aspecific circumstance.


recommendations for change to themembership.” This clearly impliesthat change is to be made throughagreement by a majority of themembers, thereby ensuring that thestandards adopted are indeed for thegood of the profession and those weserve.

My research for this article has notconfirmed that all of the valuableinformation contained in the historicaldocuments has survived in subsequenteditions of the same document or inthe migration to another. This couldprove to be an area for some interest-ing research. Suppose that someinstructions that governed an oldsurvey plan were lost during a pastdocument revision, would we, as landsurveyors attempting a re-establish-ment of that old survey, be trulyarmed with the best possible tools tocomplete the re-establishment? Canwe fulfill our professional obligationswhen performing a particularlydifficult re-establishment of an oldsurvey if we do not understand howthat survey was performed and thecriteria that governed it? As a profes-sion, will we have done a disservice toourselves, to the adjacent propertyowner, and to the clients we serve?

One instance of this type of lossthat I know of exists in the 3rd (andcurrent) Edition of the Manual ofInstructions for the Survey of CanadaLands. The previous edition containeddetailed instructions on the methodol-ogy to be used and the details ofmonumentation to be placed to markthe boundaries of sections within theThird System of Survey. This infor-mation is absent from the currentedition of this document and to myknowledge has not migrated toanother document.

Now consider that Alberta is totallywithin the Third System of Survey!Approximately 60% of our planstoday deal with the Third System ofSurvey in some fashion or anotherand a large number of those plansreflect re-establishments related tothe section line fabric. When facedwith a difficult re-establishment, canproper methodology be used today if

the original method of establishment isunknown? How do our new AlbertaLand Surveyors acquire this knowl-edge if the historical documents arenot readily available for their use andour current documents do not containthe pertinent historical information?How can we expect the new genera-tion of Alberta Land Surveyors toserve the publicto the standardthat is expectedof our professionwithout thislegacy of docu-mentation?

I am alwaysin favour ofsimplifying thingswere possible.And I recognizethat change isgood and thatimprovement isalways possible,particularly inthe area ofstandards. Atthe same time,we must becareful not tothrow awayinformationpertaining to thesurveys we dealwith, that ena-bles us to live upto our profes-sional obligationsas Alberta LandSurveyors. Afterall, the objective

At the same time, we mustbe careful not to throwaway informationpertaining to the surveyswe deal with, that enablesus to live up to ourprofessional obligations asAlberta Land Surveyors.

of a re-establishment is to determinewhere a previously establishedproperty corner was, not where itshould have been.

The history of maintaining desirablesurvey standards as currently illus-trated by the Manual of StandardPractice is well documented withinthe Alberta Land Surveyors’ Associa-tion. Any discussions involvingchanges to these standards must bedone within the historical context. Thewisdom gained from the past can beused to accentuate the guidance ofthe present, which will ensure the bestinterests of the public are maintainedin the future.

In closing, I welcome and encour-age all member feedback. If youwould like to comment on this article,or any issue, please feel free to writeeither myself or the ALSA office.

Cansel Advertisement(new)


notesby Brian Munday, Executive Directoreditor’seditor’seditor’seditor’seditor’snotes

There are three kinds of lies: lies,damned lies, and statistics.

BENJAMIN DISRAELI

With an introduction likethat, I thought I would provide themembership with a few statisticsconcerning the Association. Everynow and then, we are asked for somestatistical information about themembership. Other times, a statistic isrepeated so often that it gains thereputation of being a fact. And finally,I thought I would share with yousome information that is not particu-larly critical or necessarily useful–butit is ALSA trivia that you can use toimpress people at parties.

Smoking is one of the leadingcauses of statistics.

FLETCHER KNEBEL

Our Current MembershipAccording to the Association’sbylaws, annual membership dues arepayable on or before April 30 ofevery year. With April 30 just passed,we have updated membership infor-mation. There are:

289 ......... active members75 ........... articled pupils20 ........... honorary life members64 ........... retired members25 ........... associate members0 ............. affiliate members

The number of active membersreached a high of 303 in 1983-1984.289 active members is a 7% increaseover the number of members we hadfive years ago. When you think aboutit, that is not a very large year-over-year increase. Most of the surge canbe attributed to the one year when weregistered 25 new members. In 2000-2001, we registered 9 new members.During the same period, 7 membersapplied either to go on the retired listor resign their commissions altogether.

He used statistics as a drunkenman uses lampposts; for supportrather than illumination.

ANDREW LANG

How Old is the Membership?In the December 2000 issue of ALSNews, Lyall Pratt wrote about thepossibility of a severe shortage ofAlberta Land Surveyors by 2020. Tolook at the issue another way, over7% of the membership is currentlyaged 65 or older and 46% is aged 50or older. At the other end of thespectrum, there are only 3 memberswho are in their 20s and only 10% isunder the age of 40. Certainly, thesefigures reiterate what Lyall hadsuggested in his column.

On one hand, these numberssuggest that there is tremendousopportunity for younger people whowant to become Alberta Land Sur-veyors. On the other, the Associationmust work hard to attract studentsinto the profession while still maintain-ing our professional standards.

This is not the first time the AlbertaLand Surveyors’ Association has hadto confront this issue. The member-ship reached an all-time low of 33members in 1940. Throughout theDepression, the Association’s mem-bership hovered around 35-40. It wasnot until after the War that member-ship started to rise again. At that time,there was a concerted effort to bringmore professionals to Alberta. This,naturally, coincided with the discoveryof oil in 1947.

Again, in the late 1970s, member-ship shot up as the Associationsyllabus for entry into the professionchanged to require a university leveleducation. In 1977-78, 42 membersreceived their commission. This is

second only to the first year of theAssociation, 1911, when 73 peoplecould call themselves Alberta LandSurveyors.

It seems like every 25-30 yearsthere is something that happens whichcauses membership to change dra-matically. What will it be this time?Are we ready? Will we be as suc-cessful recruiting people into theprofession as we have in the past?

Round numbers are always false.SAMUEL JOHNSON

Where was theMembership Educated?Land surveyors who received theircommission during the 1970s had, notsurprisingly, mostly been educated atNAIT and SAIT while some wereUniversity of Alberta grads. In the1980s, the education of new AlbertaLand Surveyors was evenly distrib-uted with almost equal numberscoming from the University ofCalgary, University of Alberta,Ryerson Polytechnical Institute (as itwas known then), NAIT and SAIT.In the last decade, most new mem-bers were graduates of either theUniversity of Calgary or the Univer-sity of Alberta – with more Universityof New Brunswick graduates show-ing interest in becoming Alberta LandSurveyors.

Of the 75 articled students, 25 areUniversity of Calgary graduates and20 are University of New Brunswickgraduates. 13 graduated from anotherCanadian university. 16 of the articled

The members’ volunteerefforts clearly allow theAssociation the opportunityto change and grow and trymany different things.


students graduated from a technicalschool; 5 of those having graduatedfrom the College of GeographicSciences in Nova Scotia. There arejust two NAIT graduates and twoSAIT graduates who are articledstudents.

What does all of this mean?Before I started looking at thisinformation, I would have guessedthat we would have had more Uni-versity of Calgary graduates asmembers, given that the program hasbeen around for over 20 years now.But that is not the case. The AlbertaLand Surveyors’ Association hasbeen fortunate to attract a diversegroup of members with a variety ofbackgrounds. With 1/3 of the articledstudents now University of Calgarygraduates, are we relying too heavilyon the University of Calgary to supplyus with new members? I don’t thinkso. We have recently put a great dealof effort into promoting the professionto the University of Calgary studentsand faculty. I would like to think thiseffort is starting to pay off. ButCouncil has recognized that theAssociation, like any business orinstitution, must diversify and haveoptions in order to remain viable. Thatis why Council agreed to establishscholarships at other educationalinstitutions and has been a big propo-nent of the establishment of a nationalboard of examiners.

Where is theMembership Located?40% of the Association’s activemembers are located in Calgary. 30%are located in Edmonton and 30% arelocated in communities outside ofeither Edmonton or Calgary.

About five years ago, it wasevenly split between Calgary, Edmon-ton and other communities. Why aremore Alberta Land Surveyors choos-ing to locate in Calgary? Is it becauseof the economy? Is it because moreenergy firms are located there?Perhaps, it is because they went toUniversity in Calgary. It can’t bebecause of the Calgary Flames!

There are two kinds of statistics, thekind you look up, and the kind youmake up.

REX STOUT

Labour MobilitySpeaking of articled students, thereare currently 75 articled students. 12of those articled students already holdcommissions as land surveyors inCanada. They would be eligible tobecome Alberta Land Surveyorsunder the proposed terms of theMutual Recognition Agreement, topromote labour mobility, that is ex-pected to be signed by most of theprovincial associations and ACLS. Ofthose 12 articled students, 5 areCanada Lands Surveyors, 5 are BCLand Surveyors and 2 are Saskatch-ewan Land Surveyors.

I gather, young man, that you wishto be a Member of Parliament. Thefirst lesson that you must learn is,when I call for statistics about therate of infant mortality, what I wantis proof that fewer babies died whenI was Prime Minister than whenanyone else was.

WINSTON CHURCHILL, SIR (1874-1965)

Honorary andHonorary Life MembersAt our most recent Annual GeneralMeeting, we recognized four deserv-ing gentlemen by bestowing on themHonorary Life Membership. They areDave Holmberg, Army MacCrimmon,Tom Swanby and Ross Tate.

Throughout the history of theAlberta Land Surveyors’ Association,only 52 members have ever beenrecognized as Honorary Life Mem-bers. William Pearce, the first Presi-dent of the Association, was also thefirst person to be recognized as anHonorary Life Member. He wasconferred that honour in 1924. Itwould be another 8 years beforehonorary life membership was con-ferred again.

45 Alberta Land Surveyors werepart of the first group that receivedtheir commissions on January 1, 1911.Nine members in that first class

eventually were granted honorary lifemembership.

Ross Tate, who is commission#292, is the most recently commis-sioned Alberta Land Surveyor to alsoreceive honorary life membership.

The Association’s bylaws alsoallow Council to grant honorarymembership to any person who“through their own initiative andleadership has rendered eminentservice relating to the profession ofsurveying.” In the Association’shistory, honorary membership hasbeen granted only seven times. C.A.Magrath, in 1932, was the first personto be conferred the honour. Formerpublic member, Kurt Gesell, wasawarded honorary membership in1995.

Statistics are like bikinis. What theyreveal is suggestive, but what theyconceal is vital.

AARON LEVENSTEIN

The ExamsDoes having graduated from univer-sity instead of a technical institutemean you are more or less likely topass the exams? Do University ofNew Brunswick graduates fare betterwith the professional exams thanUniversity of Calgary graduates? Theresults from the 2000 professionalexams tell an interesting story. Pleasenote that the 2001examinations resultshad not been released at the time ofwriting this article.

The Practical Surveying examina-tion is generally considered thetoughest of the three professionalexaminations. It probably requires themost amount of study time; it isusually the one that concerns moststudents; no one usually finishes theexam early. Most importantly, it testscandidates’ ability to apply surveytheory and legislation to practical real-world situations.

In 2000, 13 of the 22 (59%) univer-sity-graduate candidates who wrotethe professional surveying examina-tion passed. By contrast, only 1 of the7 non-university graduates who wrote

....continued on page 12


LPP(repeat)

requested this page


the examination passed. Three of theuniversity graduates were writing forthe third time and three of the non-university graduates had alreadywritten the exam twice before.

For the Practical Surveying exami-nation, University of Calgary andUniversity of New Brunswick gradu-ates fared equally well. With theSurveying Profession and StatuteLaw examinations, University ofCalgary graduates seemed to farebetter than their University of NewBrunswick counterparts. Why? Idon’t know.

Certainly, the individuals who markthe exams have no idea who thecandidate is, let alone what thecandidate’s educational backgroundis.

Is it an anomaly? Given the rela-tively small sample size and the factthat I have only reviewed one year’sworth of exams, I think this is entirelyplausible. Therefore, everyone shouldbe careful in trying to draw too manyinferences or conclusions from thisinformation.

Get your facts first, and then youcan distort them as much as youplease. (Facts are stubborn, butstatistics are more pliable.)

MARK TWAIN (1835 - 1910)

Post SalesIn the year 2000, the Association soldover 180,000 iron posts and 49,000marker posts. It was the best year forpost sales.

The weakest year, not surprisingly,given the state of the economy, was1995. In that year, the Associationsold only 112,000 iron posts and30,000 marker posts. Given suchvariance in post sales, it can makebudgeting difficult. Our expenses donot vary too much as the economyrises and falls (that is, the Associationstill has certain statutory obligations).Therefore, Council has been carefulto ensure that the Association doesnot take on expenditures it could notafford when the economy slowsdown.

The strongest month for post salesis October. More iron posts are sold in

October than any other month. Infact, in October 1997, 22,690 ironposts were sold. The second strongestmonth for post sales was September1997 when 21,680 iron posts weresold.

The Association keeps a closewatch on sales trends for post sales.In conjunction with Russel Metals, wetry to project six months in advancewhat sales are likely to be based onpost sales for the last six months andseasonal variations. This way, we tryto ensure that Russel Metals alwayshas enough pipe in inventory.

The statistics on sanity are that oneout of every four persons is suffer-ing from some form of mentalillness. Think of your three bestfriends. If they’re okay, then it’syou.

RITA MAE BROWN

The Volunteer Spirit107 Alberta Land Surveyors aremembers of Association committeesthis year. This represents 37% of theactive members being directly in-volved in Association activities. Manyother associations can only dreamabout such involvement from theirmembers. This level of involvement isconsistent with past years.

Heading into the Annual GeneralMeeting, I was concerned about howmany members would have the timeto get involved. The economy isstrong and everyone is busy. But themembers came through again loudand clear. The members’ volunteerefforts clearly allow the Associationthe opportunity to change and growand try many different things.

It has also beengreat to see thatmore articledstudents are alsogetting involved inAssociation commit-tee work. I thinkthat articled stu-dents really get toknow how theAssociation oper-ates when they getinvolved with

committees early in their career. Andthe committees benefit from havingnew and fresh opinions brought to thetable.

The Association is also fortunate tohave a handful of non-membersparticipating on ALSA committees toprovide greater communication andinsight. For example, ASSMT hasliaison members on the Public Rela-tions Committee and the ProfessionalDevelopment Committee.

Thanks to everyone for volunteer-ing their time and effort!

According to the latest officialfigures, 43% of all statistics aretotally worthless.

ASHLEIGH BRILLIANT:BRILLIANT THOUGHTS(COPYRIGHT INFO:

WWW.ASHLEIGHBRILLIANT.COM)

Director of SurveysMike Michaud is the eleventh Direc-tor of Surveys in the 96 year historyof the Province. Wally Youngs is thelongest serving Director of Surveys.He held the position from 1963-1982.A.P.C. Belyea (ALS 001) served asDirector of Surveys on two differentoccasions – from 1915-1922 and1937-1946.

1905-1915 ....... L.C. Charlesworth1915-1922 .............. A.P.C. Belyea1922-1937 ................ P.N. Johnson1937-1946 .............. A.P.C. Belyea1946-1950 .............. J.H. Holloway1950-1963 ................. C.W. Lester1963-1982 ................ C.W. Youngs1982-1987 .............. E.A. Kennedy1987-1990 ................... R.F. Baker1990-1996 ...................R.A. Bassil1996-present ...........P.M. Michaud

R. WEBER CONSULTING INC.R. WEBER CONSULTING INC.R. WEBER CONSULTING INC.R. WEBER CONSULTING INC.R. WEBER CONSULTING INC.Quality Drafting & Calculating

133 Douglas Ridge Pl. S.E.Calgary, Alberta T2Z 2T2

Office (403) 720-4801Robert M. Weber Cell (403) [email protected] Fax (403) 720-4166


lettersletterslettersletterslettersto the editorA NoteFrom thePiperI would like tothank the Asso-ciation for givingme the opportu-nity to play at thePresident’s Ball.It was a lot offun—maybe toomuch fun.

I hope the myearly morning parade didn’t cause toomuch trouble with Jasper Park Lodge.If it did, then I certainly apologize. Iwill try to avoid a repeat performanceof the like.

JOHN HAGGERTYARTICLED STUDENT

50 Year PinI wish to thank the Alberta LandSurveyors’ Association for theCertificate and 50 Year Pin whichwas sent to me on April 24th. Be-cause of other commitments, I regretthat I was unable to attend the AnnualGeneral Meeting and receive theCertificate and 50 Year Pin in personand also visit some of my old friendsin the Association.

Although my work as a landsurveyor in later years was donemostly in British Columbia, I lookback with fond memories of theearlier days when all of my work wasdone in Alberta.

EARL E. LITTLE

May I take thisopportunity to extendmy sincere thanks toyou and to theAssociation for ourhospitality during therecent ALSAAnnual GeneralMeeting and Con-

vention held in Jasper. Many thanksalso for the two photographs of the 50Year Award Ceremony.

DAVE USHER, ALS (HON. LIFE)

Life MembershipI wish to expressmy thanks toCouncil for award-ing me the honourof a life membershipin this Associationand also for thephotograph of thepast presidents prior

to and after my terms. It is muchappreciated.

ROSS TATE, ALS (HON. LIFE)

I would like themembers of theAlberta Land Sur-veyors’ Associationto know how much Iappreciated receiv-ing an Honorary LifeMembership at theAnnual GeneralMeeting in Jasper on April 19, 2001.

It is indeed an honour to have myname included with those surveyorswho have received this honour in thepast.

I look forward to seeing othersurveyors’ names being added to theHonorary Life Membership list in thefuture.

Thanks for the early bird prize too!TOM SWANBY, ALS (HON. LIFE)

Just a short note tothank you for thewonderful way Doraand I were treatedat the AwardsLuncheon on Thurs-day at Jasper. It isvery much appreci-ated. Dora was very

pleased with the beautiful bouquet shereceived.

I want to compliment you on theexcellent way you conducted theproceedings. I am sure the remainderof the meeting went just as well.

Your introduction of me was quiteflattering but did bring back somewonderful memories.

DAVE HOLMBERG, ALS (HON. LIFE)

Thank YouThank you so much for inviting us asguests to the April 2001 AnnualGeneral Meeting of the ALSA inJasper.

As usual, your hospitality waswonderful. We truly enjoyed the giftbasket with all its treats—especiallythe homemade nanking cherry jelly.

P. MICHAEL MICHAUDLINDA HARRIS

Ken Berg RetiresI would like to thank Past PresidentLarry and the Alberta Land Survey-ors’ Association for the hand-craftedplumb bob pendulum presented to meat the AGM in recognition of my up-coming retirement from NAIT. It hascertainly been a rewarding experienceto contribute to the education of over800 students in the surveying profes-sion. I have always enjoyed myassociation with the ALSA and hopeto continue this to some extent in myretirement.

KEN BERG, ALS (RET.)

Thanks fromAcross the BorderI wish to personally thank you, PastPresident Larry Pals, and your entireAssociation for the invitation andespecially for the incredible hospitalityand friendliness once I arrived. I hada wonderful time and was veryimpressed with your Association. Iwas repeatedly surprised to find thatour similarities far outweigh ourdifferences, both nationally and

Elke Gerding andJohn Haggerty


professionally.Jasper Park Lodge is a truly

special place! Obviously, your Asso-ciation is well aware of all of itsattributes. Small wonder that many ofyour members wish to return everyyear. The gift basket was very muchappreciated and enjoyed. I understandJudy Pals put the gift baskets togetherand she did a tremendous job! I wishto recognize and thank her for all herefforts.

The Presidents’ Forum was mostenlightening. It was somewhat com-parable to our Board of Governors.However, we have over fifty partici-pants and unfortunately it is rathersluggish and unwieldy. Yours is farmore effective. I also enjoyed thehospitality at the Point Cabin and theMaligne Canyon tour. Thanks toSharon Steyck for producing a ticketon such short notice. Thanks againKen, and I am already looking for-ward to seeing you in January inBritish Columbia.

R. WILLIAM GLASSEY, PLS—PRESIDENTLAND SURVEYORS’ ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON

SAIT Student AwardsYour assistance in helping studentsreach their educational and employ-ment goals is a vital part of theirsuccess, especially now that theaverage cost for a SAIT student tocomplete post-secondary studies hasrisen to $3,500.

This past year, SAIT was able tohonour the academic, athletic andcommunity skills of 1,300 individualsawarding them a total of $1,300,000.With your support, SAIT’s StudentAwards Program continues to grow toensure that our learners have thefinancial resources to further theireducation and achieve their careergoals.

On behalf of the SAIT community,thank you once again for your sup-port. We are pleased to work withyou in providing education opportuni-ties to SAIT’s students.

MARIE HOLDERSAIT STUDENT AWARDS COORDINATOR

School PresentationsOn behalf of the staff and students ofthe Genesis Alternative Program, Iwould like to take this opportunity toexpress our sincere thanks for thepresentation that was given to ourstudents on careers in geomatics.Please also extend our appreciation toLyall Pratt for taking time out of hisschedule to speak with our group.

The students’ reaction was, over-all, favourable. We did not realize howextensive the career choices are ingeomatics. The presentation wasinformative and beneficial for thestaff and students.

Thank you once again for yourtime. We hope that you will be inter-ested in coming back for our summerpre-employment program.

TAMMY WIMMERLIFE SKILLS COACH

GENESIS ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM

Cadastral Chair SupportOn behalf of the Faculty of Engineer-ing and the University of Calgary,thank you for your cheque ($20,015)for the 2001 funding of the CadastralChair. Your support of the Depart-ment and the land surveying profes-sion is very much appreciated.

MARGUERITE ANDERSONADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER

DEPARTMENT OF GEOMATICS ENGINEERING

Letters from MLAsThank you very much for your March21, 2001 letter offering congratula-tions on the recent election.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness intaking the time to share your kindwords of support and encouragement.I can assure you that this governmentwill continue to work hard to build apositive future for all Albertans,especially our children and our grand-children.

My thanks for writing.RALPH KLEIN

PREMIER

Thank you for your good wishes. Stayin touch.

DENIS A. HERARD, MLA CALGARY EGMONT

Thanks so much for taking the time inwriting and offering your congratula-tions.

Best personal regards.GUY BOUTILIER, MLA - FORT MCMURRAY

MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

Thank you for your support in mynew role as MLA for Lac LaBiche—St.Paul. I would be honouredto participate in the dedication cer-emony at the Peter Fidler monumentsite in Elk Point in the future.

Please contact my constituencyoffice in St. Paul or my office inEdmonton once the dedication cer-emony has been scheduled.

Once again, thank you for yoursupport.

RAY DANYLUK, MLA - LAC LA BICHE—ST. PAUL

Thank you for your March 20, 2001letter of congratulations. The recentelection has left me pleased andoverwhelmed by the endorsement ofthe voters in Calgary Varsity. It is aprivilege to continue serving them.

I am also deeply pleased andhonoured that Premier Klein hasgiven me the opportunity to serve asthe province’s Minister of Energy.Like many Albertans, I am aware ofthe tremendous prospects and chal-lenges that face us in this sectortoday. Energy resources belong to allAlbertans and they deserve effectiveand responsible stewardship of theseresources. I remain committed tohonest, open, efficient and account-able government for our province.

Thank you again for your kindwords. Your continued support andinput will be crucial to our continuedsuccess as a province.

MURRAY SMITH, MLA - CALGARY VARSITYMINISTER OF ENERGY

Thank you for your letter of March14, 2001 and your kind congratula-tions.

Meeting with stakeholder groupswill be organized in the near future.My staff will contact you to arrange amutually convenient time.

DAVE COUTTS, MLA - LIVINGSTONE-MACLEODMINISTER OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES


Thank you for your good wishes.Your thoughts are appreciated.

As Raj Pannu said, we are a smallbut mighty caucus, and we willcontinue to speak on behalf of ourconstituents and all Albertans.

I look forward to working with thepeople of Alberta, in and out of theLegislature to ensure that the impor-tant issues are given proper attentionby the government.

BRIAN MASON, MLA - EDMONTON HIGHLANDS

Thank you for your congratulatorywishes.

It is an honour for me to onceagain represent the constituents ofEdmonton Whitemud for a secondterm. It will be exciting working withmy colleagues representing myconstituents of Edmonton Whitemudas well as residents of the City ofEdmonton along with all Albertans.

Again, thank you so much for yourwarm remarks.

DAVE HANCOCK, MLA - EDMONTON WHITEMUDMINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL

Thank you so much for taking thetime to pass along your good wishesto me. It is truly heartwarming toknow that people I respect such asyourself have provided me with suchencouragement and kind words. Thisvictory is a tribute to the many volun-teers, to our Premier’s leadership andto the support of our community.

It is my hope to work towardsachieving some of the goals ex-pressed to me during my campaign. Ihope you continue to share your ideas,so that together we can achievebetter public policies. I am alsoexcited to continue my work in theChildren’s Services Ministry. Theprojects we are working on are onesthat will provide the children ofAlberta with the well-being andquality of life they deserve.

With your assistance and faith, Iam confident that Sherwood Park aswell as Alberta will remain one of thefinest provinces in which to live. Yoursupport is very much appreciated.God bless you always.

IRIS EVANS, MLA - SHERWOOD PARKMINISTER OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES

I received the March 6, 2001Alberta Land Surveyors’ AssociationNews Release stating the Associa-tion’s establishment of a $5,000annual scholarship to a masters or adoctoral student studying land survey-ing at a Canadian university. I alsoread with great interest the offering ofa new scholarship at the University ofLethbridge.

I congratulate the Alberta LandSurveyors’ Association on providingworthy students $14,000 annually incombined scholarships to encourageand promote this rewarding career,especially in Alberta.

Keep up the great work andcontinued best wishes.

CLINT DUNFORD, MLA - LETHBRIDGE WESTMINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND

EMPLOYMENT

New PresidentGeomatics EngineeringStudents’ Society —Samantha ChinAs of May 1, a new GeomaticsEngineering Students’ Society will bein place at the University of Calgary. Iwanted to put you in touch with theincoming President, Samantha Chin.Thank you for your support this year.

VICTORIA HOYLE, B.SC.

It has been a pleasure working withyou this past year. The Alberta LandSurveyors’ Association wishes you allthe best with your career.

If there is anything we can do foryou in the future, please feel free tocontact me.

BRIAN E. MUNDAYALSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

I understand that you are the newpresident of the University of CalgaryGeomatics Engineering Students’Society. Congratulations!

The Alberta Land Surveyors’Association looks forward to workingwith you over the course of the nextyear. Some of our members, alongwith representatives from the BC,Saskatchewan, Manitoba and CLSassociations will be at the Kananaskis

Field Camp with you this August. Wealso look forward to organizing thebeef and bun reception for the stu-dents again next February.

If there is anything that the AlbertaLand Surveyors’ Association can dofor you and your fellow students,please do not hesitate to contact me.

BRIAN E. MUNDAYALSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Thanks for the email. I also lookforward to working with ALSA in theupcoming year and meeting withrepresentatives this August at surveycamp which is a unique and funexperience for Geomatics Engineeringstudents.

I appreciate your offer to helpmyself and my fellow classmates andif there is anything the Associationcan help us with I won’t hesistate tocontact you. If there is anything that Ican help ALSA with as well pleasedon’t hesitate to ask.

Thanks!SAMANTHA CHIN

Professions andOccupationsThank you for inviting us to attend theAlberta Land Surveyors’ AssociationAnnual General Meeting on April 19and 20, 2001.

We very much appreciated yourwarm welcome at your AnnualGeneral Meeting. In addition, it was apleasure to have the opportunity tomeet Larry Pals, Ken Allred andother individual members of theALSA’s Council.

Attending a professional member-ship event such as your Association’sAnnual General Meeting provides anexcellent opportunity for us to im-prove our understanding of youractivities.

Again, thank you for providing uswith the opportunity to attend thisyear’s Annual General Meeting.ADRIAN PRITCHARD LYN JOHNSONMANAGER LIAISON OFFICERALBERTA LABOUR, PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS


Recent CouncilDecisions(1) To hold three out of five annualmeetings in Jasper;(2) To provide ten thousand dollarsin funds for a chosen few to “shareour knowledge and expertise withthe world.”

Please bear with me for a momentor two while I tell you a story—a truestory! (I found it a struggle to go tosuch exotic places as Jasper when Iwas working and now find it impossi-ble. So, to be able to tell you a story, Imust resort to a letter.)

When I started on my own as aprivate practitioner in April of 1968, Ihad a shot-out 1965 Ford Galaxy, aKern DK2 and a 300 foot tape. I alsohad five children, a wife, an EnglishSpringer and a mortgage.

I was nervous about driving thesaid Ford out of town because therewas a good chance it would crap out.Following the logic that all AlbertaLand Surveyors are gifted with assoon as they obtain their commission,I decided to try for some work fromthe City of Red Deer. I obtained ameeting with the City Commissioner,one Dennis Cole (formerly Directorof Regional Planning), and his reply tome was succinct, “The City of RedDeer has always used C.H. Snell forany and all their land surveyingneeds!”

I explained my predicament andadded that all the monies I earnedwere spent within the confines of theCity of Red Deer and that I was anactive participant in numerous com-munity projects.

Mr. Cole told me he would take myarguments under consideration andget back to me.

The following Monday, I received ahand-delivered letter from the Cityrequesting my services as a LandSurveyor to register a small right-of-way plan.

To the uninitiated, this is known ascommunity spirit.(1) Now, I’ll admit that it may beexhilarating to go to expensive resorts,dress up like penguins and convince

the world and ourselves that we haveit made, but remember that chickensoutnumer and outrank penguins inAlberta and if they find out (and theywill) that you spend thousands ofdollars every year in a place otherthan the ones in which most of youearn your living, said chickens will beupset.

At worst, said chickens will takevindictive reprisals, at best, they willconsider your community spirit akin tothe droppings under the roost.(2) Americans have a word thatcovers this—BOONDOGGLE.

Your observant, but not too obedi-ent, servant.

J.C. HORN, ALS, CLS RETIRED

New Zoning BylawFirstly, I want to thank you for yourorganization’s participation in thedevelopment of Edmonton’s newZoning Bylaw. The thorough andconstructive feedback received frominterested groups such as yours wasinstrumental in shaping a modern andresponsive zoning document.

The new Zoning Bylaw 12800takes effect on Thursday, June 14,2001, and the Land Use Bylaw 5996will no longer have effect on thatdate. While much of the former LandUse Bylaw has been retained, therehave been some significant improve-

ments. To assist members of the landdevelopment, design and planningprofessions to adjust to the newBylaw, information about the improve-ments is being added to the City’sweb site.

I encourage your organization’smembers to view this information onthe City web site. The site address iswww.gov.edmonton.ab.ca/zoningbylaw/. If desired, we can alsoprovide you with a supply of High-lights sheets for your own distribution.Please contact the Edmonton ZoningBylaw voice mail at 496-6191 withyour request.

Thank you once again for yourorganization’s interest and participa-tion.

LARRY BENOWSKI, GENERAL MANAGERPLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

THE CITY OF EDMONTON

Gord Olsson RetirementI would like to thank you for the veryappreciated words given at myretirement party (roast) and wouldalso like to thank everyone at theAssociation office and the ALSA forthe “plumb bob” gift. It is a treasuredwork of art. It has been wonderfulbeing involved with the ALSA forover thirty years and hopefully, I’llhave several more.

GORD OLSSON, ALS

37th ALSA Annual Golf Tournament

Lacombe Golf and Country ClubSeptember 7, 20011:00 p.m. Shotgun Start

Don’t be disappointed — register now!


Who Owns a TheoreticalRoad Allowance?There is some debate betweenmunicipalities and petroleum explora-tion companies regarding who isresponsible for the administration ofroad allowances in Alberta. Somemunicipalities feel they are the admin-istrative body for all road allowances.For the purpose of the present discus-sion, there are three different types ofroad allowances: surveyed developed,surveyed undeveloped and unsur-veyed (theoretical).

The title to all roads in Alberta isvested in the Crown. Indeed, theMunicipal Government Act, Part 3,Division 2, Section 16(1) says, “titleto all roads in a municipality, otherthan a city, is vested in the Crown inright of Alberta.” However, inSection 18(1) of that Act, the Crowngrants a municipality “direction,control, and management of all roadswithin the municipality.” Clearly,municipalities have administrativeauthority of roads in their respectivemunicipalities.

In the Government OrganizationAct, Schedule 14, Section 1, “highwayor road means land used or surveyedfor use as a public highway or road.”Obviously, from this description, asurveyed developed road allowance isa road. Although a surveyed undevel-oped road allowance is not used as aroad, it has been surveyed and there-fore, is a road. An unsurveyed (theo-retical) road allowance is not used asa road and has not been surveyed.Thus, it is not a road.

To define whether a road has beensurveyed, we must look at the Sur-veys Act and how land is surveyed in

Alberta. Part 2 of the Surveys Actdescribes how a system of surveysshall be established in Alberta. Sec-tion 29 says: “The Minister may direct that publicland be surveyed under the supervi-sion of the Director (of Surveys)(a) in the Alberta township system…or(b) in lots of a size and shape and

with allowances for roads that theMinister considers advisable.”

When new land is surveyed in Al-berta, it may or may not be surveyedin accordance with the theoretical grid(township system). According toSection 30(3) of the Surveys Act, “noland is considered to be surveyed untilthe official plan has been confirmedby the Director (of Surveys).” Byexamining official township surveyplans that have been produced forover a hundred years, the surveys arerarely established according to thetheoretical township system. There-fore, the locations of theoretical roadallowances are simply part of animagined reference grid used forpositioning. This grid is no differentthan using a North American Datum(NAD) coordinate system or amilitary grid system for positioning.

In summary, because a theoreticalroad allowance is not surveyed andsince the municipalities have adminis-trative authority of surveyed roadsonly, responsibility for administeringtheoretical road allowances remainswith the Crown. The location of thetheoretical road allowance shouldhave no bearing on the positioning ofwells, access roads, pipelines or othersurveys that define boundaries exceptto be used as part of the referencegrid.

Before and After

Thanks to all of my fellow landsurveyors for their many donations tothe “Kids Cancer Care Foundation.”Most, if not all, had never seen mewithout my beard (never mind withoutany hair). For those of you whohaven’t seen me yet, here is proof Iactually did shave my head and beard.If any others feel inclined to make adonation, send it to:

Kids Cancer CareFoundation of Alberta

#205, 609 - 14 Street NWCalgary, AB T2N 2A1

Thanks again to all!IAIN DOUGLAS, ALS

fffff WCBE Moves fffff

associationassociationassociationassociationassociationnotes

Effective June 1, 2001, the Western Canadian Board ofExaminers (WCBE) is no longer located at theUniversity of Calgary. The WCBE has moved to theACLS office in Ottawa with Jim Simpson as Registrar.All inquiries should be directed to:

Western Canadian Board of Examiners for Land Surveyorsc/o Association of Canada Lands Surveyors

1390 Prince of Wales Drive, Suite 400Ottawa, ON K2C 3N6

Tel: (613) 723-9200 Fax: (613) 224-9577Registrar: Mr. Jim Simpson (e-mail: [email protected])

STEVE YANISH, ALS


New Members#674 SMITH, Purdy E.

Purdy was bornin Saint John,NB on July 11,1963. He at-tended SimondsHigh School andgraduated in1982. He wenton to receive aB.Sc. in SurveyEngineering

from the University of New Bruns-wick in 1992.

R.J. Fulton, ALS served as Purdy’sprincipal from May 1995 to March2001. The topic of the technical reportsubmitted as part of the qualifyingexamination was Survey and Align-ment Conceptual Design Documentfor the Canadian Light Source.Purdy is also a member of APEGGAand the Canadian Institute ofGeomatics and served on the ALSAStandards Committee from 1997 to1999. Commission as an AlbertaLand Surveyor was received onMarch 23, 2001.

Surveying experience includesprecision measurement, deformationmonitoring, small scale hydro, controland subdivisions. Purdy is a partner inFulton & Associates Surveyors Ltd.

Sailing, fishing, golf and woodwork-ing are a few of the leisure activitiesthat Purdy enjoy. Purdy and LeeAnnSmith reside in Calgary.

#675 SHAW, Desmond R.Desmond wasborn in NorthVancouver, BCon September 1,1971. Hegraduated fromNorth DeltaSenior Second-ary High Schoolin 1989 andwent on to

receive a B.Sc. in Geomatics Engi-neering from the University ofCalgary in 1997.

Articles were served under AlbertaLand Surveyors J.J. Matthyssen(May to July 1997), K.E. White (July1997 to September 1999) and J.VanBerkel (September 1999 to March2001). An Analysis of the PrinciplesOutlined Within the Report of theStudy Group on the CoordinateBased Cadastre was the topic of thetechnical report submitted as part ofthe qualifying examination. Desmondreceived his commission as an Al-berta Land Surveyor on March 22,2001. He is also an Engineer InTraining with APEGGA.

Desmond’s surveying experienceincludes working as a rodman and hasworked as Project Manager forStantec Geomatics Ltd. since 1999.

Leisure activities are soccer,fishing, hockey and camping.

Calgary is home to Desmond andTara.

#677 GILL, ArthurArthur Gill wasborn in Medi-cine Hat,Alberta on May26, 1965. Hegraduated fromMedicine HatHigh School in1983 and wenton to receive aSurvey Diploma

from NAIT and a B.Sc. in SurveyingEngineering from the University ofCalgary in 1991.

W.L. Edgerton served as Arthur’sprincipal from November 1996 toMarch 2001. The topic of the techni-cal report submitted as part of thequalifying examination was Posting ASubdivision Using Real Time Kin-ematic GPS (RTK). Arthur receivedhis commission as an Alberta LandSurveyor on March 27, 2001 and isalso an Engineering In Training withAPEGGA.

Arthur worked for McElhanneyLand Surveyors from 1991 to 1995and presently is employed by HIWSurveys Ltd. and works in a varietyof areas.

Leisure activities include makingwine, camping, fishing and golf.

Arthur and Geraldine Gill reside inGrande Prairie.

Olson Surveys Ltd., a Lacombebased land survey firm is currentlyseeking an Alberta Land Surveyor oran articled student to compliment theirexisting staff in an active practice.The work and duties of the successfulcandidate will depend on his/herattributes, ambitions and willingness tolearn and provide services in areas ofGIS (Geographic Information Sys-tems). A working knowledge of CADdrafting programs, computing andGPS network adjustment will be anasset. Fax resumes in confidence to(403) 843-4961.

One only Wild T2 Universal Theodo-lite with Automatic Index. Thisinstrument is in excellent conditionand has its original travel case andmanual—no tripod. If interestedcontact J.C. Horn at (403) 347-0105.

MicroSurvey Software, Inc.Do you have a background in survey-ing or civil engineering, with strongcommunications skills and experiencewith CAD? MicroSurvey Software isa fast growing Okanagan softwarecompany specializing in surveying andcivil engineering applications. We arelooking for full time Technical Salesand Technical Support Representa-tives who are looking for a challeng-ing career in the beautiful SiliconVineyard. Please e-mail your resumeto: [email protected] orfax to (250) 707-0150.

HELP WANTED FOR SALE

ALSA Annual GolfTournament

September 7, 2001Lacombe Golf and Country Club

ARE YOU REGISTERED?


Gord OlssonRetires

Ladies and Gentlemen and guest ofhonour, Gordie Olsson, hereafterreferred to as the roastee:

I want to thank you for this oppor-tunity to express some thoughts onGordie Olsson, Canada land surveyingand the federal government which, inthe interests of being politicallycorrect, I would have had to other-wise refrain from saying.

First, I want to clear the air and layto rest that old myth that if you workfor the federal government, it’s afairly easy life. You come in late inthe morning, have a few coffeebreaks and lunch, leave early in theafternoon and not really do much ofanything. I can personally vouch thatthis is not the case because in 1959and 1960, I actually did about sixmonths work for Legal Surveys whilethey had me employed for two years.

When the invitation to Gordie’sretirement initially came out in themail, I glanced at the split line fieldnotes on the left hand side of theinvitation and mistakenly assumed thatif this was a retirement party forGordie, these were a copy of his fieldnotes. However, I later noticed thatthe line was run on the 20th of Octo-ber, 1908 and realized my mistake.This means that between 1908 and2001 (if you’ll just bear with me for amoment, they teach surveyors calcu-lus and trigonometry, but only about50% of us can add and subtract)would be 93 years. Assuming he wasapproximately 20 years old when he

ran the line, this would make him 113years old today. And you only have tolook at Gordie and the shape he is into realize he is probably two or threeyears younger than that.

I haven’t seen Gordie for a fewyears so the first thing I noticed whenI met him tonight is that his hair line isreceding a bit. I’ve always thought ofit not so much as going bald, but as adepleting natural resource. However,I’ve never actually come out and saidthis because the last thing a seniorwants is a bunch of environmentalistsin his hair. Basically, I don’t thinkGordie has to worry because in one ofthe federal government acts there is asection which says in effect “thatarea so long covered as to wrest fromit any vegetation or growth or to marka distance change on same, automati-cally reverts to the Crown.” So eventhough he has left the Government,they may always own a small piece ofhim. How much they will own willhave to be computed by a Canada

Lands Surveyor, all of whom had topass an exam.

I don’t know how well Gordie ranhis department but just as a matter ofinterest, I noted that when Gordiestarted with the federal governmentapproximately 35 years ago, thefederal debt was 17.2 billion dollarsand today it is 582 billion dollars.Although at first I assumed it hadnothing to do with him, I did becomesuspicious when, this year, which isthe year of his retirement, the Gov-ernment is showing its first eversurplus of 15 billion dollars.

I would like to congratulate Gordieon his 35 years of surveying whichhas taken him all the way from transitand chain or tape surveys right up toglobal positioning. I might add herethat I have never agreed with thename global positioning and havealways figured it would be somethingmore suited to an international prosti-tute than to a land surveyor.

In closing, I would like to say that Iam certain that I speak for everyonepresent this evening when I wishGordie and Sheila a happy and healthyretirement. Retirement isn’t so muchgiving up something old as it is a newbeginning. It’s a time to start projectsyou have always wanted to do, butnever had the time. I’m sure bothGordie and Sheila will be very happyin the years ahead.

D.B. (DUNC) GILLMORE, ALS (HON. LIFE)

Executive Director Brian Mundaypresenting Gordon Olsson with aretirement gift from the ALSA.


Facilitating Electronic Commerce:A Discussion Paper on Bill 21: The Electronic Transactions Act

The Electronic Transactions Act isonly one piece of the puzzle. Furtherwork is underway to address impor-tant issues related to security, authen-tication of information and ways ofensuring that appropriate safeguardsare in place for consumers. Thisdiscussion paper provides backgroundinformation about Alberta’s proposednew legislation and seeks your adviceon a number of key questions. Thepaper is being distributed to a widerange of organizations and associa-tions that would be affected by thelegislation. It is also available on theAlberta Innovation and Sciencewebsite for any interested Albertansto review. We’re interested in yourfeedback and ideas.

If you would like to submit yourcomments electronically, you can doso by going to the Alberta Govern-ment Innovation and Science WebSite at www.innovation.gov.ab.ca.

Ensuring ConsistencyAcross CanadaAlberta is not alone in recognizing theneed to have solid laws in place tofacilitate electronic commerce. Whenwe talk about electronic commerce,many people think of financial trans-actions. In fact, electronic commerceapplies to a broad range of electronictransactions, both financial andotherwise, that take place in both theprivate and public sectors.

Internationally, the United NationsCommission on International TradeLaw developed a Model Law onElectronic Commerce in 1996. Basedon this Model Law, the Uniform LawConference of Canada approved aUniform Electronic Commerce Act inAugust 1999.

At the federal level, The PersonalInformation Protection and ElectronicDocuments Act became law in April,2000. Part II of that Act deals withelectronic transactions at the federallevel. It sets out requirements to allow

the use of electronic technologywhere, under federal law, the use ofpaper has been required in the past toensure legal status. It also describesthe characteristics of secure elec-tronic signatures and grants authorityto make regulations describing tech-nologies or processes for the purposeof defining a secure electronic signa-ture.

The Uniform Electronic CommerceAct has been used by Alberta andother provinces as a framework forlegislation to remove barriers toelectronic transactions and ensuregreater consistency across the coun-try. Because business and publicsector transactions often apply acrossa number of provinces and territories,consistency in legal rules and require-ments helps facilitate electroniccommerce and electronic transac-tions. Greater consistency and clarityof legal rules and requirements is alsoa benefit to consumers as well aspeople doing business in the publicand private sectors. Across thecountry, several provinces and territo-ries have taken steps to put similarlegislation in place including: BritishColumbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick,Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec,Saskatchewan, Yukon, and PrinceEdward Island. Alberta’s approach isconsistent with the legislation intro-duced in these other provinces.

The Alberta ApproachThe following are some of the keyfeatures of Alberta’s Bill 21, theElectronic Transactions Act.The legislation simply enables elec-tronic transactions and ensures thatelectronic signatures and recordshave the same legal status underAlberta law as written (paper) infor-mation. The legislation does notrequire the use or acceptance ofelectronic communications. Peoplecan continue to use traditional, paper-

Editor’s Note: The Alberta LandSurveyors’ Association is notexpected to be subject to Bill 21.However, bodies such as the Al-berta Energy & Utilities Board andthe Alberta Surface Rights Boardwill be.

IntroductionElectronic commerce is quicklychanging the way business and workgets done—in the private sector, inhealth authorities and school boards,colleges and universities, municipali-ties, public boards and the provincialgovernment.

Traditional ways of doing businessoften depended on paper records andtransactions in writing. Alberta’s laws,and similar laws across the country,reflected a business world whereforms, contracts and other recordswere available only in printed form,signatures were required in writing,and extensive paper records werestored in filing cabinets. In today’sworld of high-speed access to theInternet and electronic business,continuing to require signatures inwriting or paper-based transactions nolonger makes sense. Alberta’s laws,and similar laws across the country,are changing to reflect the growinguse of electronic transactions in manyaspects of both public and privatesector business.

Bill 21, the Electronic TransactionsAct is about moving forward to thefuture—removing barriers to elec-tronic commerce and ensuring thatAlberta’s laws keep pace with achanging world. It has a clear andspecific purpose—to give electronicsignatures and records the same legalstatus as their paper-based counter-parts. The legislation will not affectpeople’s ability to continue usingpaper-based records and transactionsbut, where electronic transactions arein place, they will have the same legalstatus as paper records and transac-tions.


based approaches in dealing withgovernment, public organizations or inthe business sector. Consent by bothparties would be required beforebusiness is conducted electronically.Consent of a public body must beexplicit before initiating electroniccommunications. Alberta’s proposedlaw is consistent with Canadian andinternational standards and will applyto Alberta laws that require signaturesor information to be provided inwriting. Amendments will be made tothe Alberta Evidence Act to allow

electronic records to be admitted asevidence.

Further work is underway toaddress important issues surroundingsecurity and authentication of infor-mation transmitted electronically. Thisis essential to ensure that all partiesinvolved can be confident that theinformation is secure, valid andreliable. These additional “pieces ofthe puzzle” will be outlined in thecoming months. We’re interested inyour views on the essential compo-nents of the legislation. If you have

questions or would like additionalinformation, please contact:Peter C. Crerar Executive Director,Strategic Initiatives Office of theChief Information OfficerAlberta Innovation and Science9th Floor, John E. Brownlee Building10365 – 97 StreetEdmonton, AB T5J 3W7Phone: (780) 422-8545Fax: (780) 422-0956e-mail: [email protected]: www.innovation.gov.ab.ca

Ken Berg RetiresKen started as an instructor at NAITin 1970. His first class had only sevengraduates, including John Van Berkeland Peter Lapainis, who went on toreceive their ALS commissions. Overthe thirty-one years, he has instructedover eight hundred students in variouscourses. Approximately thirty stu-dents went on to receive their ALScommissions, while others when on toreceive other commissions anddegrees. Ken has served under fourdifferent NAIT presidents.

For 27 years, he has also served ona variety of ALSA committees aswell as a two-year term on Council.

On June 8th, a retirement receptionwas given for Ken at NAIT, whichwas attended by over sixty staffmembers. His present staff presentedhim with a picture of them dressed inlate eighteen hundreds attire alongwith survey instruments of that era.

In his retirement, Ken plans todevote more time to his farm in theFort Saskatchewan area as well as,perhaps, teaching some specialclasses at NAIT. Ken will now havemore time to further develop hispassion …. jazz piano.

Left to right: Dwayne Westacott, Cate Kein, Connie Hanrahan and Terry Ingraham


Land Measurement Systems(new)


The Need for a Statutory Boundary Tribunal in AlbertaA Research Paper by G. K. Allred, ALS, CLS

“I suffered only two financial disasters:Once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one.” Benjamin Franklin

IntroductionAt the April 2000 Annual GeneralMeeting of the Alberta Land Survey-ors’ Association, the following motionwas proposed and passed:Moved by Bill Hunter, seconded byDavid Thomson, that it isrecommended that the Council ofthe ALSA consider establishing acommittee charged with preparing a“white paper” for presentation tothe Government of Alberta withrespect to establishing a statutoryboundary tribunal to provide anavenue to resolve boundaryuncertainties and disputes as analternative to resorting to the courtprocess.

Review of ProblemAs proposed at the May 15 ALSASteering Committee meeting, I metwith the Director of Surveys, and TedAllen, and have had telephone discus-sions with Bill Hunter, ALS the moverof the motion.

In my discussions with the forego-ing individuals, I learned that therehave been very few applications for areview pursuant to Section 9 of theSurveys Act in its 14 year history.There have, in fact, only been threehearings pursuant to the Act. Thesehave all been reported in ALS News.(September 1995). It has also beenindicated to me that there could be inexcess of two thousand unresolvedwater boundary problems in the filesof Alberta Public Lands. If this is, infact, the case, it may very well be thatthe lack of a simple, inexpensiveprocess may be the reason that theseproblems have gone unresolved overthe years. The provision of a simple,inexpensive process to resolve theseproblems would in itself be ample

• The New Brunswick BoundariesConfirmation Act;

• The Ontario Boundaries Act;• The Québec judicial process called

Bornage. - Survey Law in Canada- Chapter 8 -Settlement of Bound-ary Uncertainties, p. 327-331, andChapter 10, The Law in Québec, p.420-434.

Proposed Action PlanIt is proposed that this term of refer-ence be dealt with as follows:That prior to forming a formal com-mittee structure that the followingresearch be completed to put forwarda draft “position paper.”• Provide this background paper to

and meet with the following indi-viduals to solicit further input,perhaps through a roundtablediscussion:—Director of Surveys—Surveyor to Land Titles—Association solicitor—The mover and seconder of themotion.

• Review Section 9 of the SurveysAct and the ALSA files leading tothe adoption of Section 9.

• Review Sections 74 and 180.1 ofthe Land Titles Act and the Limita-tions Act regarding adverse pos-session.

• Review Sections 90 and 94 of theLand Titles Act pertaining to theamendment of the legal descriptionon certificates of title.

• Review the Land Titles Act,Limitations Act and Limitations ofActions Act (now replaced by theLimitations Act) to determine thestate of the law of adverse posses-sion in Alberta and the feasibility ofdealing with the same outside thecourt system.

justification for the initiative to providea process.

I have reviewed the followingAlberta legislation which may bepertinent to the resolution of boundaryand/or title disputes, survey errors orother disparities related to boundariesor survey discrepancies:• Arbitration Act (SA 1991,

c. A-43.1)• Land Titles Act (RSA 1980,

c. L-5) Sections 74, 90, 93, 94, and154-187 in particular.

• Law of Property Act(RSA 1980, c.L-8)

• Limitations Act(SA 1997, c. L-15.1)

• Limitations of Actions Act(RSA 1980, c. L-15)(predecessor legislation to theLimitations Act, 1997)

• Line Fence Act(RSA 1980, c. L-16)

• Surveys Act(SA 1987, c. S-29.1) Section 9

I have reviewed some of thehistory of the major review of theSurveys Act in the 1980s when theconcept of a Boundary AdjudicationBoard was put forward by the Al-berta Land Surveyors’ Association.This concept resulted in what is nowsection 9 of the present Surveys Act.

A review of a number of otherlegislative procedures from otherNorth American jurisdictions has alsotaken place. These include:• The Maine Alternate Dispute

Resolution process - published inthe Nevada Traverse, Vol.24, No. 3and No. 4 - 1997;

• The Massachusetts Land Court -The Canadian Surveyor, Vol.29,No. 1, March, 1975, p. 23-28;


• Review Section 60 of the Law ofProperty Act regarding improve-ments placed on the wrong prop-erty.

• Review any other Alberta legisla-tion that might have an impact onboundary adjustments that mightwarrant a judicial process.

• Review Chapter 8 - Settlement ofBoundary Uncertainties in SurveyLaw in Canada.

• Review the Ontario BoundariesAct.

• Review Chapter 10, BoundaryDetermination (10.185 - 10.218) -The Law in Québec regarding theprocess of “bornage.”

• Review the boundary adjudicationprocess in New Brunswick.

• Review the proposals for arbitra-tion and/or mediation in Maine andtheir applicability to Alberta.

• Review any other remedies avail-able in other jurisdictions thatappear to be applicable to oursituation.

The foregoing research should besufficient to determine and discuss thepresent limitations of Alberta law andwhat procedures are already in placein other jurisdictions.

Legal AdviceIn view of the legal nature of thisproblem and the need to have a broadunderstanding of the law in Alberta asit relates to the resolution of legalproblems by a quasi-judicial tribunal, itmay be necessary to seek independ-ent legal advice before proceedingfurther.

During discussions on Section 9 ofthe Surveys Act when it was in draftstages, there was considerableresistance on the part of the govern-ment at the administrative level toexpand the powers of a tribunalbeyond that of “correcting surveyerrors.” Concerns were cited that itwas ultra vires to delegate powers tosettle private boundary disputes to aquasi-judicial body. Personally, I couldnever get a handle on the specifics ofthese concerns in light of similarpowers that seem to be delegatedunder the Ontario Boundaries Act and

“bornage” under the Québec CivilCode.

It is, therefore, recommended thatwe consider obtaining some independ-ent legal advice to advise us on someof the legal constraints that we mightencounter.

ConclusionThis review has attempted to examinethe history of the current Section 9 ofthe Surveys Act which is likely theonly process for the resolution ofboundary type problems outside of thecourt system. It is clear that thebreadth of this remedy was severelylimited in the discussions that led up tothe passing of the new Surveys Act in1987. It is also clear that “surveyerrors” are only a minor cause ofboundary uncertainties and theprovisions of Section 9 of the SurveysAct do not extend far enough toresolve the majority of boundaryproblems. It is also clear that thereare many quasi-judicial tribunals inAlberta that are available to rectify alarge number of injustices, but none ofthem are available to resolve bound-ary problems.

The review also highlights rem-edies available in other jurisdictions,that may provide some guidance thatcan be applied to Alberta situations.

In reviewing Mr. Allred’s report,Council established the StatutoryBoundary Tribunal Ad Hoc Com-mittee. The terms of reference forthe Ad Hoc Committee are:

1. Analyze the report, "The Needfor a Statutory Boundary Tribu-nal in Alberta: and supplementalmaterials on the OntarioBoundaries Act.

2. Assign committee members toresearch each of:a) LTO,b) DOS,c) Public Lands,d) ALSA members,e) Court cases,f) ALSA Discipline Committee/Practice Review Board andg) Legal community.

3. Compile data in two separatecategories:a) survey related andb) natural boundaries.

4. Analyze information in committeeand discuss.

5. Identify options for changeincluding Land Titles Act andSection 9 of the Surveys Act.

6. Recommend a course of actionbased on a single objective toform either a judicial or a quasi-judicial tribunal or a modifica-tion of an existing tribunal.

7. Upon approval of a course ofaction, oversee the drafting of aposition paper and legislation toimplement same.The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Com-

mittee is Dwight Wiberg. The fullreport is available on the Associa-tion’s website at www.alsa.ab.ca.

Don’t let another issue of North America’sleading Geomatics magazine pass you by!

What Are You Waiting For?

Subscribe online at www.profsurv.com

Become one of over 1,000 Canadians thatalready receive Professional Surveyor

Magazine 11 times per year


The Mysteryof CapitalWhy Capitalism Triumphs inthe West and Fails EverywhereElse by Fernando de Soto

In his new book The Mystery ofCapital, Fernando de Soto presentsan interesting hypothesis on why thirdworld countries are experiencingproblems participating in the worldeconomy.

Fernando de Soto is President ofthe Institute for Liberty and Democ-racy headquartered in Peru which isregarded by The Economist as thesecond most important think-tank inthe world. De Soto has expounded formany years on the need for develop-ing countries to adopt a simple,inexpensive system of land tenure toencourage and facilitate squatters inobtaining legal title. Legal title is neces-sary to leverage capital, that is inherentin secure property rights, to develop andexpand business interests.

In the Mystery of Capital, subti-tled Why Capitalism Triumphs in theWest and Fails Everywhere Else, deSoto discusses research the Institutehas conducted in Peru, Egypt, Philip-pines and other developing nations,and how the bureaucracy in thosecountries has stymied squatters fromobtaining legal title by red tape, delaysand fees. De Soto’s focus is on the80% of the world’s population livingoutside “the bell jar” of capitalism, asocial system which most of us takefor granted.

De Soto advocates giving legal titleto squatters. In Lima, Peru, register-ing title to a home involves 207separate steps. To register a businessit took 289 days at a cost of $1,231—the equivalent of 31 months pay. In aprocess to formalize informal urbanproperty in Philippines, a privatelicensed surveyor had to be involvedin 11 of 168 steps spanning 13 to 25years. A Clerk of the IndividualCourt Branch was involved in 17steps.

bookbookbookbookbookreviewOne rather interesting comment

that de Soto makes on boundaries isregarding a visit to the rice fields inBali: “I had no idea where theproperty boundaries were. But thedogs knew. Every time I crossedfrom one farm to another, a differ-ent dog barked.”

De Soto is not hung up on moderntechnology. He observes that“...mappers, surveyors, and compu-ter experts are indispensable tomake information systems work.”He also notes that “...another primemisconception is that real estateassets cannot be legally registeredunless they have been surveyed,mapped, and recorded with state-of-the art geographic informationsystems...” in observing that goodland registration systems precededcomputerizationby decades andeven centuries.De Soto hasstrong words forthe well-intentioned butoften abortedplans of interna-tional agencies inimplementingland reform, onlyto be blocked bypolitical or legalresistance afterthe surveying andmapping stepshave beenimplemented andprior to the actualland titling. (Thisphenomenon isnot unique tointernationalagencies and hasbeen observed asclose as theCanadian mari-time provinceswhich are onlynow proceedingwith land titles,after a delay ofnearly 30 years.)

De Soto has divided his thoughtsinto seven easy-to-read chaptersunder the following headings:• The Five Mysteries of Capital:• The Mystery of Missing Information• The Mystery of Capital• The Mystery of Political Awareness• The Missing Lessons of US History• The Mystery of Legal Failure• By Way of Conclusion

Further information on De Soto andthe ILD, including the first chapter ofthe Wealth of Capital, can be viewedon the Institute’s web page atwww.ild.org.pe. This is a great bookfor any surveyor with an interest ininternational work in land tenure andregistration systems.

G.K. ALLRED, ALS

Cansel Advertisement(new)


AGM 2001: The Business Meeting

Bill Shores Gordon Butler Fred Hingley and Larry Pals

Bill Lovse and Larry PalsAl NelsonJohn Stephens

Michael O’Sullivan Greg Browne

Ken Allred Robert Morrison


spr director’sspr director’sspr director’sspr director’sspr director’sSPR Phase 2Practice Ratings

We reported our analysisof the SPR Phase 2 practice ratings inthe June 2000 issue of ALS News. Itis our intention to provide an annualupdate of this information and here isyour next installment.

ComponentsThe plan, the field notes and the fieldsurvey are usually examined for eachproduct assesed in a practice review.Not all products receive a fieldinspection. However, 78.7% of thePhase 2 products examined to datehave included a field inspection. Eachof these three components is exam-ined using checklists developed forthat purpose. The individual items inthe checklists are weighted as di-rected by the Phase 2 FrameworkDocument. For instance, any checklistitem that impacts the boundaryestablished or re-established by thesurvey has a greater weight thanitems that do not impact the boundaryin question. A product with no bound-ary-related deficiencies will, there-fore, score fairly high, unless it has avery large number of lower-weighteddeficiencies.

CategoriesIn addition to providing the individualproduct rating, component ratings(plan, field notes, field survey) aretracked under six survey categories:subdivisions, rights-of-way, wellsites,real property reports, road surveysand other plans. This breakdownallows a practitioner to compare theirown product and its individual compo-nents to the high, low and averagescores in that product category.

Product RatingsEach product rating is an expressionof the combined ratings of the indi-vidual component reviewed – theplan, the field notes and the fieldsurvey. At this time, the three compo-nents are weighted equally, so that theproduct rating is the average of allcomponents examined—usually all

three—but sometimes just the planand the field notes. The average ofthe product ratings provides thePractice Rating.

ObservationsTable 3

Practice RatingsSPR Phase 2 to May 31, 2001

Average High Low80.50 93.04 59.76

Table 1Product Component Ratings – SPR Phase 2 to May 31, 2001

Categories1 --------- Plan ---------- ------ Field Note ----- ---- Field Survey ---Average High Low Average High Low Average High Low

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Subdivisions 90.40 98.72 72.65 68.87 94.88 17.36 79.82 100.00 40.46Rights-of-Way 92.87 98.33 82.02 77.23 90.39 57.96 87.42 98.98 60.78Wellsites2 87.60 97.59 75.86 75.05 97.11 40.79 81.36 97.62 48.10RPRs 86.86 96.30 69.41 71.01 92.56 39.45 68.82 91.93 36.12Road Surveys 89.33 98.75 73.82 75.22 84.63 51.71 76.43 97.37 35.69Other Plans3 92.90 98.02 83.95 75.49 81.78 66.50 89.89 93.88 86.25

All plans 89.26 98.75 69.41 73.08 97.11 17.36 77.98 100.00 35.69[While any of the averages expressed here may change over time, the sample size is now

large enough to prevent much fluctuation in an average based on one extremely high orlow component score.]

1 Depending on the type of work undertaken by a practice and the number of land surveyors inthat practice, products may have been examined from some or all of the six listed categories.

2 Surveyed and unsurveyed territory.3 Such as Monument Plans, Condominiums, Strata.

Table 2Product Ratings

SPR Phase 2 to May 31, 2001

Categories Average High Low(%) (%) (%)

Subdivisions 80.87 98.13 58.19Rights-of-Way 85.72 93.99 72.31Wellsites 81.45 91.60 65.41RPRs 76.05 91.53 59.97Road Surveys 81.48 91.37 60.94Other Plans 85.18 98.13 58.19Total All Plans 80.65 98.13 58.19

It appears that the average practicerating has increased by only about onepercent since last year.

The average plan rating has goneup in all categories except rights-of-way; however right-of-way planscontinue to be the highest scoringplans.

The average field note score is

With a few exceptions, theoverall trend appears to beshowing slight improvement inmost categories.

by Lyall Pratt, ALSspr director’sspr director’sspr director’sspr director’sspr director’smessage


very near the same as last year, withthree of the six categories reflectingslightly higher scores and the otherthree slightly lower scores.The average field survey ratingimproved by 2.8% from last year, withone subdivision field inspectionscoring 100 percent.

Similar to last year, the real prop-erty reports continue to have thelowest averages for plans and fieldsurveys. Subdivision field notes,however, have replaced real propertyreport field notes as the lowestscoring field notes in any specificcategory.

With a few exceptions, the overalltrend appears to be showing slightimprovement in most categories.

CFE(new - Peerless has)


Case Study No. 8:Metal DetectorsCan’t Stand Alone!

The ProjectThe practitioner conducted a realproperty report survey in 1999 on a lotwithin a subdivision, the plan of whichwas registered in 1979. The SurveysAct outlines that the property cornersare to be determined by proportioningthe distance between block corners,as lot corners did not govern if postedbetween the dates of February 16,1912 and June 9, 1988. The practi-tioner located the two statutory ironposts at the south end of the block butdid not locate the statutory iron postsat the north end of the block. He alsolocated an iron bar at or near one ofthe corners of the subject property.

The Plan ExaminationFrom an examination of the practition-er’s real property report, it wasapparent that the survey did not usethe survey evidence governing theproperty corners of the lot. The RPRdoes not mention the two statutoryiron posts at the north end of theblock and the practitioner’s field notesshow ‘found no mark’ at these twolocations. It appeared from the planand field note examinations that thepractitioner may have used the ironbar as secondary evidence as he didnot find the governing block corners.

The LegislationSubdivision surveys registered be-tween February 16, 1912 and June 9,1988 did not require that all lot cor-ners be monumented. This approachis addressed in Part E, Section 4.8 ofthe Manual of Standard Practice andSection 41(5) of the Surveys Act.Pursuant to Good Practice Resolution#4 adopted in 1958, it was consideredgood practice from 1958 until June 9,1988 to place wooden posts or ironbars at all lot corners where statutorymonuments were not required. Evenbefore 1958, as a matter of conven-ience and practicality, surveyors oftenplaced wooden hubs or iron bars at lotcorners not requiring a statutory ironpost and included a note in the planlegend indicating this.

Wooden posts or iron bars placedunder this scenario are not the gov-erning monuments. If found today,these markers might be consideredsecondary evidence but they are notgoverning evidence as there was nostatutory requirement to place them atall.

Since June 9, 1988, all lot cornersare monumented with statutory ironposts and boundaries are governed bythe monuments.

Part D, Section 7.3 of the Manualof Standard Practice deals withboundary definition for real propertyreports and reads: “A surveyorperforming a survey to prepare anAlberta Land Surveyor’s RealProperty Report shall locate andconfirm sufficient survey monu-ments according to the Surveys Actexcepting thereout the provisions ofSections 40(3) and 42(3) to definethe boundaries of the parcel.”

The Field InspectionThe SPR field inspection, in August2000, located the statutory iron postsfound by the practitioner and alsowhat appeared to be the originalmonuments at the north end of theblock. As in all field inspectionswhere we locate evidence not foundby the practitioner, we make meas-urements to sidewalks, fences orcurbs as well as measure the depth ofthe monument below ground level.The two monuments found at thenorth end of the block were at thelocations where the practitioner’s fieldnotes indicated ‘found no mark.’ Withall of the block corners now located, itwould be easy to re-establish the lotcorners by proportioning, as requiredby the legislation.

The Practitioner’s ResponseThe SPR report indicated that ourfield inspection had readily found ironposts at the north corners of Lot 18.After receiving the report, the practi-tioner made another field visit to theproperty and reported back as fol-

s p rs p rs p rs p rs p rcornerby Lyall Pratt, ALSDirector of Systematic Practice Review

This is the eighth in a series ofarticles featuring problems commonlyencountered in Systematic PracticeReview. The purpose of these articlesis purely educational and, although thematerial is taken from an actualpractice review, no names or identify-ing legal descriptions are included.Opinions expressed in this article arethose of the author.

The ProblemOne of the reasons surveyors oftenfail to locate sufficient governingevidence is that they don’t use theshovel. SPR field inspections fre-quently locate additional surveyevidence that should be used in there-establishment of the boundaries.This is particularly true for realproperty report surveys.

SPR findings to date suggest that alarge percentage of real propertyreports have boundary-related defi-ciencies. 41% of RPRs examined inPhase 1 had survey evidence defi-ciencies and 39% failed to find anduse evidence that governed theboundaries being established. ThePhase 2 practice ratings reportedelsewhere in this issue show thatRPRs continue to have problems inthis area. The average RPR fieldsurvey rating in Phase 2 to date(68.82%) is nearly 10 percent belowthe average for field surveys in allcategories.

Perhaps in the minds of somesurveyors there is a perception thatreal property report surveys are notreally boundary surveys. The fact isthat, for most landowners, a realproperty report may be their onlyexposure to our profession and theywill rely on the RPR to confirm thattheir boundaries have been correctlyestablished.


lows: “A field survey was con-ducted to verify the ‘readily foundiron posts at the north corners ofLot 18.’ Although there were nu-merous indications of buried metalfrom re-bar in a surface concretestorm drain, we confirmed ouroriginal field data of ‘found nomarks’ at the north corners of Lot18.”

We subsequently provided thepractitioner with details of the locationand depth of the monuments relativeto the surface features. The practi-tioner visited the site for a third timeand this time located the monumentsfound by the SPR field inspection. Inhis supplementary response, thepractitioner said, “I am embarrassedby our blunder in not locating thesurvey evidence at Lot 18. I havedocumented the problem in myresponse. Nevertheless, I wish toapologize for any inconvenience in

time and resources this may havecaused. We conducted anotherfield survey and using the samemetal locating equipment as beforecame to the same conclusion thatthere were no buried posts at thenorth corners of Lot 18. However,using the reference distancesprovided in your memo of January17, we did locate the said postsand, as a result, will amend andreissue the Real Property Report. Ithas been our practice in frozenground conditions to rely on metallocating equipment to determine ifdigging is warranted. This instanceis our first experience where thatpractice has totally failed. Webelieve the combination of frozenground, ice and re-bars in theconcrete surface drain produced aunique effect on the electronics ofthe equipment used. Regardless ofthe circumstances, this was a

blunder on our part and it is nowour policy that, in similar circum-stances, digging for pins will bemandatory.”

The MessageIn this case, as in numerous othersinvolving field inspections for realproperty report surveys, we locatedsurvey evidence not found by thepractitioner. As noted earlier, thishappens almost 40% of the time, or intwo out of every five field inspectionsconducted for real property reports.

This suggests to me that manypractitioners do not put sufficienteffort into evidence location andassessment for real property reportsurveys. With a little effort this is onestatistic that can be improved. As thepractitioner in this case study con-cluded, a metal detector can only trulybe relied on when a shovel is used aswell.

Butler Survey Supplies(new - Peerless has)


GuardGuardGuardGuardGuardpostby John VanBerkel, ALS

Reflections of aBoard Member

My experience as a mem-ber of the Practice Review Board(PRB) for the past two years hasbeen at times gratifying, at timesfrustrating, and always encouraging.

Little did I know, when my tenureon the Board commenced, that one ofthe expectations of a PRB member isto write an article for ALS News. Mewrite? Heck, no! I am an ALS; Inever learned how to write. We weretaught to how to turn angles, pullchains, pull and straighten iron posts,chop down trees, calculate closures—but write…? No Sir!

I was hoping for a little sympathyfrom my friend Brighid McGarry andtold her of my predicament. Sheindicated that given the situation Icould serve duty on Don George’ssurvey crew for three months ratherthan write the article—however, Iwas to be the shovel guy. Whoa, waitjust a second there…we all knowhow relentless Mr. George is with ashovel —sparing no effort in search-ing for “I” holes, wooden posts andheavens knows what else. There isn’ta corner of the province that hasn’tescaped Mr. George’s scrutiny. Iunderstand he has worn out 873shovels since he started his digging.So that’s why I find myself writingthis article.

Back to the BoardWe are now well into the secondphase of Systematic Practice Re-views and finding a noticeable im-provement from the first time around.I would have to say, therefore, thatthe SPR program is a success.

However, on occasion we still haveto deal with a difficult practitionerwho for some reason chooses not tocomply with legislation or who doesnot respond in a positive manner to arequest of the Board. This sometimesculminates in a hearing with thepractitioner and, occasionally, inreferral to the Discipline Committee.

Referral to the Discipline Commit-tee is never taken lightly by theBoard. We spend many hours deliber-ating whether or not discipline shouldbe a consideration. However, at theend of the day, we are responsible tothe Alberta Land Surveyors’ Associa-tion and we must do what is in thebest interests of the profession andthe public.

Much of the Practice ReviewBoard’s time is spent on—yes, ourfavorite topic—the Alberta LandSurveyor’s Real Property Report.Why are there so many rules for thissurvey and why have they changedthem again? It took me twelve yearsto learn the old rules and now I amnot sure if the last one I signed was areal property report or an unrealproperty report.

Little did I know...that oneof the expectations of aPRB member is to write anarticle for ALS News.

Why don’t we just change theManual of Standard Practice so thatprofessional land surveyors signingthe product can decide for themselveswhat to show?

An Alberta Land Surveyor’s RealProperty Report should be preparedunder the following two rules only:• Establish the subject property

boundaries in accordance with theSurveys Act;

• Show those improvements that arenecessary for the approvingauthority to determine compliance.

Don’t be surprised to see such amotion coming forward at the nextAGM.

In closing, I would like to thankCouncil for the opportunity to serveon the Practice Review Board and Iwould also like to commend LyallPratt and his excellent staff for theprofessionalism shown in the perform-ance of their duties.

Editor’s Note:The opinions expressed in thisarticle are not necessarily those ofthe Practice Review Board.

You don’t have to golf . . . . .to enjoy wearing one of the

ALSA’s new golf shirts.They are 100% cotton, ALSA

logo and name on the sleeve,and come in a variety of sizes.

Only $40 plus GST.Contact the ALSA office to

get yours today!!!


UpdateUpdateUpdateUpdateUpdateAlberta SustainableResource Development

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development UpdateAlberta’s resources in the interests ofAlbertans.

In addition, Land Surveys Sectionstaff have moved to the 14th floor ofOxbridge Place, from the 15th floor,and Mike Michaud has moved to the2nd floor of the South Tower ofPetroleum Plaza. Fax and phonenumbers have not changed, with theexception of Mike Michaud’s new faxnumber, which is (780) 422-4252.

2) Calgary Calibration BaselineInformation on the baseline can befound in Geoff Banham’s articlepublished in this issue of ALS News.

3) Spatial Information (SPIN)System Access to TownshipPlans

SPIN access to current and historicaltownship plans was made available onMarch 31, 2001. First time users arestrongly encouraged to read theguidelines provided. These guidelinesprovide important information on the

Following are updates toinitiatives underway withinthe Director of Surveys &Technical Services Branch,Land Administration Divi-sion, Alberta SustainableResource Development.

1) New DepartmentRecent organizational changes ingovernment have resulted in theDirector of Surveys and TechnicalServices Branch moving to the newMinistryof Sustainable ResourceDevelopment. The Honourable MikeCardinal is Minister, and Dr. BobFessenden is Deputy Minister. Theministry’s vision is to develop Alber-ta’s forest, fish and wildlife, and publiclands resources within a policy,administrative and regulatory frame-work that benefits both present andfuture Albertans, the owners of theresources. The mission is to optimizethe sustained contribution from

The Calgary EDM Calibration Baseline – Issues and Solutions

data and explanations on the variousmetadata fields.

4) Enhanced Survey and PlanStandards for Public LandDispositions

The dispositions working group of theStandards Committee will continuetheir monthly meetings, focusing theirefforts on the development of stand-ards for digital plans and redrafting ofthe dispositions portion of the Manualof Standard Practice.

Technical Services has initiated aproject to scan and reference theexisting mylar composite townships.When completed, the referencedraster townships would allow refer-enced digital plans to be inserted intothe fabric with minimal effort. Theraster townships would also be madeavailable for distribution to clients. Apilot area is planned for the fall of2001.

MIKE MICHAUD, ALS

IntroductionThis article has been written toprovide insight on the pier stability andlocation issues associated with theCalgary EDM calibration baseline aswell as the solutions to be employedto resolve them. Those persons whorequire further information cancontact the Director of Surveys andTechnical Services Branch:

Geoff Banham, P.Eng.Geodetic Control Section

Director of Surveys and TechnicalServices Branch

Alberta SustainableResource Development

14th Floor Oxbridge Place9820 – 106 Street

Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6Ph: (780) 422-1291Fax: (780) 427-1493

E-mail: [email protected]

BackgroundThe Calgary Electronic DistanceMeasurement (EDM) CalibrationBaseline is one of four EDM calibra-tion baselines within Alberta that aremaintained by the Government ofAlberta. The other three baselines arelocated in Lethbridge, Edmonton andGrande Prairie. Each baseline con-sists of a set of forced-centring piersspaced from approximately 100metres to over 2 kilometres dependingon which baseline is being observed.The Government of Alberta is respon-sible for general maintenance of thebaselines while Geodetic SurveyDivision (GSD – Geomatics Canada,NRCan) is responsible for the deter-mination of the baseline lengths.

In April 2000, GSD tabled aposition paper recommending that thenumber of designated maintained

EDM baselines in Canada be reducedfrom the current 44 to 10. In addition,GSD indicated they would undertakere-measurement of the non-desig-nated EDM baselines on a cost-sharing basis with the appropriateprovincial agency. Although GSDrecognizes the importance of EDMcalibration baselines, they see areduced need for EDM calibration byfederal and provincial survey organi-zations.

In June 2000, the Director ofSurveys and Technical ServicesBranch (the Branch) wrote to theAlberta Land Surveyors’ Association(ALSA) Council to inform them ofthe position paper put forward byGSD and the Branch’s recommenda-tions regarding Alberta’s baselines.The recommendations were:


• The Edmonton EDM calibrationbaseline would be the designatedmaintained baseline in Albertabecause of its pier stability, numberof users, and its central locationwithin the province.

• EDM calibration baselines inLethbridge and Grande Prairie willbe re-measured via cost sharingbetween GSD and the Branch.

• Due to significant pier instabilityand location problems, the CalgaryEDM calibration baseline would nolonger be re-measured.Council expressed significant

concern regarding the recommenda-tion to stop re-measuring the Calgarybaseline given the number of users inthe Calgary area who require it. InFebruary of this year, the Branch metwith Messrs. Pals, Jaques, McWilliamand Munday to discuss the issues andpotential solutions. As a result, it wasdecided to:• inform all ALSA members about the

issues related to the Calgary EDMcalibration baseline through ALSNews;

• outline the position taken by theBranch with regard to the CalgaryEDM calibration baseline;

• request that Alberta Land Surveyorsusing the Calgary EDM calibrationbaseline submit their EDM calibra-tion survey data to the Branch forbaseline stability monitoring.

IssuesPier InstabilityMovement has been identified at fiveof the eight Calgary EDM calibrationbaseline piers.• Pier 3 had about a +0.5 mm move-

ment between the 1988 and 1990epochs.

• Pier 4 had about a +1.2 mm move-ment between the 1990 and 1991epochs.

• Pier 5 had about a +1.1 mm move-ment between the 1991 and 1994epochs.

• Pier 8 had about a +1.2 mm move-ment between the 1990 and 1991epochs and a further +0.8 mmmovement between the1991 and1994 epochs.

• Pier 6 is specifically identified asbeing unstable with movements of-7.3 mm, +3.3 mm, and -6.8 mmfrom the 1988 to 1994 observationalepochs.

GSD has concluded that pierinstability at the Calgary baseline is atthe millimetre range and that scaledetermination for an EDM is onlysupported at the 3 to 4 parts-per-million level of accuracy. GSD furthernotes that no movement was deter-mined between the 1994 and 1995epochs because the unstable pierscould not be readily identified.Pier Location• Pier 8 is located off-line from the

other baseline piers.• Pier 7 is only visible from piers 1 and

6 due to changes in elevation.• Baseline observations from piers 4

to 5 and 4 to 6 are through a hole cutin a chain link fence which mayhave an adverse impact on measure-ments.

• Baseline observation from pier 2 to 8goes under a high voltage electricalbox, which may have an adverseimpact on measurements.

• Piers 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all locatedon property owned by the CalgaryAirport Authority (SpringbankAirport). There is a strong potentialfor development in and around thebaseline piers in the future.

Position• The Branch will undertake to have

the Calgary EDM calibration base-line re-measured on a five-yearcycle as is currently planned withthe other three EDM calibrationbaselines within Alberta.

• The results of the re-measurementswill be used to monitor furtherinstability of any of the piers on thisbaseline.

• Along with republishing of thebaseline lengths, a note will beincluded indicating which piers of thebaseline are to be used with caution.

• When it is proven that the baselinecan no longer support EDM calibra-tions as required under the SurveysAct, the Branch will recommend thatthe baseline no longer be used forEDM calibrations.

Submission ofEDM Calibration Survey DataIn discussion with the Calgary ALSAmembers at the February meeting, itwas suggested that EDM calibrationsurvey data be submitted to theBranch as a way to help monitor theCalgary baseline on a more regularbasis. The benefit to members will bea more closely monitored baselinewith reasonably accurate baselinelengths. The Branch endorses thisapproach, as it will enable us tomonitor for significant movement ofbaseline pillars and potentially requestre-measurement of the baseline byGSD over a shorter time period thanfive years.• As part of the monitoring process,

Alberta Land Surveyors arerequested to forward their EDMcalibration surveys to the Branch.

• In order to support this objective,specific data requirements forinformation to be submitted to theBranch for EDM baseline surveyswill be placed on the Director ofSurveys website (www.gov.ab.ca/env/land/dos/) for users to accessand use.

ConclusionThe Branch recognizes the impor-tance of the Calgary EDM calibrationbaseline to Alberta Land Surveyorsworking in the Calgary region. TheBranch also recognizes the statutoryrequirement for EDM calibration asdefined under the Surveys Act.However, the Calgary baseline as itcurrently exists does have inherentweaknesses that users must be awareof when calibrating their EDMequipment on this baseline. In addi-tion, annual re-measurement of thisbaseline by GSD to determine thebaseline lengths is cost prohibitive atapproximately $3,000 per occasion.Therefore, through the combinedefforts of the Branch, GSD and theALSA members, the Calgary baselinecan continue to meet EDM calibrationrequirements in the Calgary area.

GEOFF BANHAMDIRECTOR OF SURVEYS AND

TECHNICAL SERVICES BRANCH


This Bulletin contains asummary of the work of the Cana-dian Council of Land Surveyors(CCLS) in the first quarter of 2001and is the second bulletin pub-lished in 2001. Any input is wel-comed by the editor and can becommunicated to the CCLS officeby, e-mail, fax, mail, or telephone.

Office AdministrationThe CCLS office in Ottawa, which isbeing shared with the Association ofCanada Lands Surveyors (ACLS)and Canadian Institute of Geomatics(CIG) office, continues to work wellfor all. It has been a real advantage tobe able to communicate directly withour newest association member, theACLS, through Executive DirectorJean-Claude Tétreault, and also tomeet easily with CIG and GeomaticsIndustry Association of Canada(GIAC) on matters pertaining to thejointly— sponsored Human Re-sources Sector Study. The ACLS hasalso agreed to help maintain theCCLS web site in- house so thatupdates and revisions will be moreeasily accomplished.

The 2001 budget has been ap-proved by the Board of Directors.

HRDC GeomaticsSector Study ProgressThe Human Resources Study for theGeomatics Sector, jointly sponsoredby CCLS, CIG and GIAC withfunding from Human ResourcesDevelopment Canada (HRDC), isnearing completion. The final reportwas ratified by the Steering Commit-tee at a teleconference meeting onMay 14th and includes the results of astrategic planning workshop held inOttawa on April 20th. The workshopwas a facilitated planning session toidentify action items and the means topursue those actions based on thefindings and recommendations con-tained in the Sector Study itself. TheCCLS has been well represented onthe Steering Committee by DougSimmonds, Bert Hol, and Andy

DeCoste throughout the study whichbegan work in September 1999. DougSimmonds has been representing theCCLS on the Administrative Commit-tee for the study since well before theofficial start. Many thanks to all threeindividuals for their time and talents.

Labour MobilityConsortium for SurveyorsFour face-to-face meetings of theConsortium for Land Surveyors underthe Agreement on Internal Trade -Labour Mobility Chapter have takenplace since the Consortium wasformed in April 2000. No furthermeetings are scheduled. All elevengoverning bodies for land surveying inCanada have been, and continue tobe, well represented and are workingtowards the July 1st target date for amutual recognition document toensure that the movement of licensedsurveyors within Canada is not undulylimited. The final draft document iscurrently being presented by theConsortium representatives to theassociation boards and councils forconsideration. It is the Consortium’saim to have all eleven associationssign the agreement which containsprovisions for annual review and forthe implementation of any changes topolicy, bylaws or legislation that maybe necessary to fully implement theagreement. This is another exampleof a group of individuals who havegiven freely of their time to representeach association member in a nationalforum.

NAFTAWayne Brubacher, OLS, and DickWright, BCLS, met with Americanand Mexican delegates in March tofurther discuss the Mutual Recogni-tion Document (MRD) on profes-sional surveying under NAFTA whichhas been circulated to all memberassociations. Several commentsresulting from the last circulationwere brought forward at that meetingand minor revisions have been made.The Committee met with representa-

tives of the Department of ForeignAffairs and International Trade(DFAIT) and Industry Canada (IC)on April 18th to discuss the next stepsand solicit advice from the federalgovernment on the wording of theMRD.

World Trade Organization—General Agreementon Trade of ServicesA second reason for the April 18th

meeting with DFAIT and IC repre-sentatives was to discuss the WorldTrade Organization’s (WTO) GeneralAgreement on Trade of Services(GATS). The Canadian Governmentand 135 other WTO member coun-tries are currently negotiating underthe GATS to further reduce barrierswhich limit the international trade ofservices. The CCLS has been askedto provide input in two areas.

The first is to identify marketaccess barriers and priority marketsof export interest to Canadian landsurveyors. A questionnaire has beendeveloped and is available for anyonewho has experience in this area toprovide input.

The second issue concerns thedevelopment of multilateral rules toensure that domestic regulationsrelated to qualification and licensingrequirements and procedures andtechnical standards do not constituteunnecessary barriers to trade inservices. A template has been devel-oped, using the accountancy sector asa model, and we have been asked tocomment on the relevance to ourprofession and to suggest additions oralternates.

Because of the overlapping issuesin this area and the NAFTA discus-sions, the Board of Directors haverenamed the NAFTA Committee theInternational Trade Committee andasked Wayne Brubacher and DickWright to take the lead on theseissues at this time. There is alwaysroom for more interested people so ifyou have a particular interest in

cclscclscclscclscclsbulletinby Sarah J. Cornett, BSc, OLSCCLS Executive Director


international trade regulation pleasecontact either the CCLS office orWayne or Dick directly for moreinformation.

Professional LiabilityInsurance CommitteeThe Professional Liability InsuranceCommittee is continuing its work withEncon to develop an insurancemanual to be available to all insureds.The manual will contain informationon the programme and the Commit-tee, loss prevention issues, practicemanagement issues related to insur-ance and liability. An existing manualin use by the architects and engineersprogramme is being used as a model.The surveyor’s manual will be morespecific to our industry and morecompact. It is being designed to beconstantly used and updated withcurrent information and will beavailable electronically.

National Board of ExaminersThe CCLS Board has committed toinvestigating the development of anational board of examiners for landsurveying in Canada. The concept hasthe endorsement of the existingregional boards of examiners andplans are being made to discuss theissues further at a June 24th meetingin Fredericton, NB.

Public RelationsA working group to renew the PublicRelations Committee has been re-viewing the work of the previouscommittee and is investigating optionsfor future initiatives. ACLS DirectorCarl Friesen has taken the lead in thisproject and is being assisted by RoyPominville, Serge Bernard, Jean-Claude Tétreault and StephenHartley.

Distance EducationSteering CommitteeThe Distance Education SteeringCommittee was initially formed by theACLS and is now a Committee of theCCLS. It consists of a representativeof each of the 10 provincial associa-tions and the ACLS. The Committeesent out a request for expressions of

interest to both educational institutionsand individuals who are known to theCommittee for expertise in cadastralsurvey topics regarding the provisionof survey law courses through distanteducation techniques suitable for bothsurvey and geomatics students at theuniversity or college level and continu-ing education participants throughsurveyors associations. The Commit-tee has received four expressions ofinterest, has made an initial response,and will be requesting more detailedinformation from the potential provid-ers in the next weeks.

The Committee is also working onstrategies to locate and accessfunding on a national basis to supportpotential providers and will be work-ing closely with the surveyors’ asso-ciations as well as related organiza-tions to ensure communication andinformation exchange between thosegroups, their individual members andcourse providers.

Current Board andExecutive CommitteeYour current Board of Directors iscomposed of Scott Murphy, NLS,David Morris, PEILS, Gerald Pottier,NSLS, H. Murdock MacAllister,NBLS, Denis Blais, OLS, SelwynSanderson, MLS, Roy Pominville,SLS, Monroe Kinloch, ALS, DaveBazett, BCLS, and Carl Friesen,ACLS. Carl Friesen, Scott Murphy,Dave Bazett and Monroe Kinloch arerelatively new to the board havingtaken up their positions earlier thisyear so we have lots of new sourcesfor ideas and active participation. TheExecutive Committee members forthis year are President Greg Browne,BCLS, Vice President James Dobbin,NSLS, Past President Philip Milo,NSLS, Secretary Treasurer GerryHawryluk, MLS and ExecutiveDirector Sarah Cornett, OLS.

Annual Meeting 2002The Board has set the date andlocation of the next annual meeting ofthe Canadian Council of Land Sur-veyors for March 17-18, 2002 at theLaurel Point Inn in Victoria, B.C., inconjunction with the next Association

of Canada Lands Surveyors AnnualMeeting.

In SummaryAs is evident from the paragraphsabove, the CCLS is an active organi-zation with many valuable and busyindividuals contributing to its work. Ifyou have a particular interest in aspecific issue or would like to beinvolved at the committee level,please contact the CCLS office orany member of the Board or a currentcommittee. We are always pleased toexplain our work to interested partiesand would welcome input and partici-pation from all members.

JUNE 8, 2001

Net NotesNet NotesThe EnglishLanguageHave you ever needed to find that“right word?” Looking for thatpithy quotation to add to a presen-tation or report? Have you everwondered when a word needs tobe capitalized? Have questionsabout grammar?

The web has a plethora ofpleasing websites to help you findthe right answers.

Acronym Finderwww.AcronymFinder.com

Bartlebywww.bartleby.com/index.html

Dictionary.comwww.dictionary.com

Dictionary - One Lookwww.onelook.com

Grammar - Bartleby.comwww.bartleby.com/141/index.htmlGrammar - The Blue Book of

Grammar and Punctuationwww.grammarbook.com

Thesaurus.comwww.thesaurus.com

Words, Phrases and Quotationswww.freeality.com/phrasest.htm


Spectra Precision(repeat)


newsnewsnewsnewsnewsprint

Garage Fiasco LandsEntrepreneur in Jailby Kim WestadTimes Colonist Staff

over the property line, encroaching onhis neighbour’s land.

When that was discovered, Porterhad two choices, prosecutor PeterFirestone said. He could have dealtwith it lawfully, and simply rectify theproblem, or he could be unlawful,which is what Porter chose.

Melvin ruled that Porter faked plans,faked a surveyor’s ticket and movedthe property pin—all to hide the factthat the garage was over the line.

The judge found him guilty ofdefrauding the neighbour of land;forging a surveyor’s certificate;uttering a surveyor’s certificate as if itwas genuine and willfully removing aboundary marker.

Christie said Porter panicked andwas merely trying to cover up aninnocent mistake.

But Firestone said there wasnothing panic-stricken about Porter’sdeliberate forgery and fraud. Fire-stone said Porter lied in court, dis-played a “diabolical dishonesty,” andcontinues to blame everyone else forhis problems except himself.

The judge earlier characterizedPorter as displaying a “callous disre-gard for the truth.” The situationescalated from a neighbour dispute to acriminal case because of Porter’sactions, not that of others, Melvin said.

Christie argued that any jail sen-tence be served conditionally, whichmeans free in the community undercertain restrictions. Melvin refused,saying the deliberateness of thedishonest scheme made it inappropri-ate for a conditional sentence.

Melvin noted that Porter is a familyman who has contributed to societyand is not likely to commit furtheroffences, but still said his conduct was“particularly egregioius.”

Porter will also be on two yearsprobation after the jail term is complete.

The situation has also spilled overto the civil courts, where Porter isbeing sued by his neighbour. Porteroffered several times to pay hisneighbour for the land, but no agree-ment has ever been reached.

REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROMTHE TIMES COLONIST

A 57-year-old Central Saanichbusinessman was jailed one yearMonday for a crime that began withan innocent mistake over a newgarage.

Norman Monty Porter was hand-cuffed and taken into cells after BCSupreme Court Justice Allen Melvinsaid, “Sheriff, you can remove theprisoner.”

But Porter’s lawyer Doug Christiewas filing the conviction and sentenceappeal before Porter, who had nocriminal record before this, was evenout of the courthouse.

Christie will also apply for bail forPorter, pending the appeal hearing.

It all started with a new garagePorter built on his Mount NewtonCross Road property in 1996. It wasunintentionally built about one metre

AGM 2001: Some Exhibitors


disciplinedisciplinedisciplinedisciplinedisciplinedecisionsReport of the DisciplineCommittee of theAlberta Land Surveyors’AssociationConcerning a Discipline CommitteeHearing into the Practice of AllanG. Nielsen, ALS and/or NielsenLand Surveys Ltd. Resulting from aReferral from the Practice ReviewBoard.

Findings of Fact:1. That Allan G. Nielsen, ALS is

and was at the time of the allegedoffence a member in good stand-ing of the Alberta Land Survey-ors’ Association. That he hasbeen a member in good standingcontinuously since 12 July 1976.

2. That as a result of numerousdeficiencies and concerns de-tected during the regular System-atic Practice Review of Allan G.Nielsen, ALS, the PracticeReview Board ordered a follow-up review be undertaken.

3. That as a result of serious surveyrelated problems and deficienciesdetected in this follow-up review,inadequate responses and misseddeadlines, the Practice ReviewBoard held a hearing to furtherreview the practice of Allan G.Nielsen, ALS.

4. Since the hearing conducted bythe Practice Review Board intothe practice of Allan G. Nielsen,ALS revealed serious deficienciesand demonstrated a lack of skilland understanding in the practiceof surveying, the Practice ReviewBoard referred this matter to theDiscipline Committee.

5. Since the Chairman of the Disci-pline Committee concluded theseallegations were neither frivolous orvexatious, of a serious nature andwould constitute unskilled practiceof surveying and/or unprofessionalconduct if found correct, heordered this matter to be reviewedby the Discipline Committee.

6. That Allan G. Nielsen, ALSconducted a right-of-way surveyand filed a plan of same in theLand Titles Office as PlanNumber 982 3578.

7. That Allan G. Nielsen, ALS andNielsen Land Surveys Ltd.undertakes a high volume of workfor the size of the firm.

8. That Allan G. Nielsen, ALS doesall of his own field work andcalculating. No field work iscon-tracted out.

9. That Allan G. Nielsen contractsout drafting for oilfield, largerprojects and projects that requiredigital drawings. He relies on thiscontract draftsman to preparedigital files in accordance withLand Titles requirements.

10. That although Allan Nielsen, ALSundertook in his initial review toimprove his field notes, field andoffice procedures and undertakecertain corrections, the follow-upreview indicates little in the wayof improvement; particularly withrespect to the survey and filingR.W. Plan 982 3578.

11. That Allan G. Nielsen, ALS wasfound to be still using the wrongcertifications on wellsites andreal property reports in thefollow-up review that he under-took to correct in the initialreview.

12. That the field notes, survey,research, calculations andresulting filed Right-of-Way Plan982 3578 are all of very poorquality and attempt to makecorrections were inadequate.

13. Despite numerous time extensionsand communications, attempts tohave Allan G. Nielsen, ALSrectify the survey and problemson R.W. Plan 982 3678 failed dueto lack of action by the practi-tioner and/or the lack of adequateaction by the practitioner.

14. Allan G. Nielsen, ALS failed tomonument numerous intersectionsduring the survey shown on R.W.Plan 982 3678.

Findings of theDiscipline Committee:Pursuant to the Land Surveyors Actand Regulations thereunder, theDiscipline Committee as a result ofreceiving the allegation of unskilledpractice of surveying against Allan G.Nielsen, ALS and/or Nielsen LandSurveys Ltd. conducted a hearing onthe 25 July 2000. After hearing theevidence presented by The Directorof Practice Review, a member of thePractice Review Board, transcript of15 March 2000 Practice ReviewBoard hearing with Allan G. Nielsen,ALS, correspondence between thePractice Review Board and Allan G.Nielsen, ALS, and testimony fromAllan G. Nielsen ALS; we the Disci-pline Committee hereby reports ourdecision, findings, reasons and order.1. The Discipline Committee finds

Allan G. Nielsen, ALS guilty ofthe offence of unskilled practiceof surveying pursuant to the LandSurveyors Act for the followingreasons:

Reason 1a:Allan G. Nielsen, ALS did notmonument numerous intersectionsof Right-of-Way Plan Number 9823578 with other plans of survey asrequired by Section 41(1)(ii) of theSurveys Act.

The Discipline Committee finds themonumentation of numerous intersec-tions was not missed accidentally, wasnot caused by discerning the differ-ence between active and abandonedlines, and was not merely the result ofmissing information on the filed planof survey. Although Mr. Nielsenadmits he is aware that intersectionsare to be monumented, he knowinglydid not do these. Even when thePractice Review Board brought thisdeficiency to his attention, he failed toreview and examine his plan thor-oughly enough to recognize all themissing intersections, thus giving theimpression that he was not aware of


the current statutes, regulations andstandards of practice with respect tothis type of project. The Committeefinds the failure to react to thisomission—particularly after it wasbrought to his attention, is a seriousbreach of responsibilities as a landsurveyor and constitutes unskilledpractice.

The Discipline Committee issatisfied that Mr. Nielsen is awarethese intersections are required bystatute. However, the DisciplineCommittee is concerned about thelack of importance Mr. Nielsenappears to place on this issue andabout Mr. Nielsen’s field and officeprocedures that allowed this to goundetected.

The Discipline Committee finds thereason these intersections were notmade was due to the limited time Mr.Nielsen had allotted to this project, thepressures on him due to his highvolume of work, limited experience inprojects of this size and nature andthe lack of any field and officeprocedures to detect this situationduring his posting and plan preparationstages.

Reason 1b:Allan G. Nielsen did not tie hisright-of-way survey shown on PlanNumber 982 2578 into the AlbertaSurvey Control Network as re-quired by regulations under theSurveys Act.

Mr. Nielsen failed to conduct anadequate search to determine ifAlberta Survey Control Markersexisted within one kilometre of Right-of-Way Plan 982 3578. While missinga control tie does not constituteunskilled practice, Mr. Nielsen’ssubsequent lack of action does. Evenafter this omission was noticed andreported to Mr. Nielsen by the Prac-tice Review Board and after he gavehis undertaking to make this tie, hestill had not make this tie at the timeof the Board hearing.Reason 1c:Allan G. Nielsen, ALS failed torespond adequately to suggestionsand direction provided to him

through the Systematic PracticeReview process to improve his fieldand office methodology. Mr.Nielsen voluntarily gave certainundertakings to the Practice Re-view Board to improve deficienciesin his practice after his initialreview but it was discovered in thefollow-up review these were notadequately implemented by him.

Mr. Nielsen is to be commended onhis hands-on approach to land survey-ing. He is present in the field at allmaterial times, that is, in the field forthe evaluation of survey evidence, inthe field directing the methodologyused for his survey, in the field for theplacing of the new or re-establishedmonumentation, he conducts his owncalculations, supervises the prepara-tion of his final product and personallychecks his plans for correctness.

The Committee accepts Mr.Nielsen’s testimony that he is cogni-zant of the need for redundancies inthe field and that he does performthese on a regular basis during thecourse of his surveys to confirm theaccuracy of his work andmonumentation even though thisinformation is not recorded in his fieldnotes or shown on his plan. TheCommittee also recognizes the properuse of modern surveying equipmentwith on-board data recording capabili-ties and calculation power doesprovide near perfect results and nearperfect transfer of information fromfield to office to field.

However, all this technology andproper used of same does not elimi-nate the need for field notes showingfound evidence, placedmonumentation, location of improve-ments and recording of at least theredundancies pertaining to placedmonumentation because later this maybe the only proof available of properlyplaced monumentation. Even afterMr. Nielsen gave his undertaking toimprove his practice with respect tofield notes in his initial review, thePractice Review Board found noimprovement in his follow-up review.This lack of action is of great concernto this Committee as it contributes to

the appearance of disregard to thepractice review process which wasattempting to assist and improve Mr.Nielsen’s practice through educationalmeans.

2. The Discipline Committee findsAllan G. Nielsen, ALS guilty ofthe offence of unprofessionalconduct pursuant to the LandSurveyors Act for the followingreasons:

Reason 2a:Allan G. Nielsen, ALS did notrespond to the Practice ReviewBoard in a timely fashion and,when he did, his interpretationsand actions were not adequate.

The Practice Review Board waspleased with Mr. Nielsen’s apparentcooperation and attitude during thecourse of his review and follow-upreview. However, it took numerousreminders and time extensions to getMr. Nielsen’s attention and action.Once Mr. Nielsen’s response wasreceived, it was found to be bothinadequate and incomplete; particu-larly with respect to the survey andplan preparation of Right-of-Way planNumber 982 3578. This uncertaintyand frustration fuelled the need of ahearing by the Practice ReviewBoard with Mr. Nielsen and subse-quently a referral to the DisciplineCommittee.

The Board finds the actions of thePractice Review Board and theDirector of Practice Review withrespect to all aspects of the reviewprocess, the follow-up review, thetreatment of Mr. Nielsen and thehearing to be fair and reasonable. Thereview of Right-of-Way Plan Number982 3578 by the Practice ReviewBoard, discussions with Mr. Nielsenat the Practice Review Board hearingand communications with Mr. Nielsenconvinced the Practice Review Boardand this Committee that although Mr.Nielsen understands the requirementsthe Surveys Act, Regulations andcurrent standard practice with respectto this project, he does not recognize


the importance of this compliance andthe consequences of his failure to doso.

With respect to the serious prob-lems detected on Right-of-Way PlanNumber 982 3578 and brought to Mr.Nielsen’s attention, the importance ofhaving these corrections done accu-rately and promptly was recognizedby the Practice Review Board andrelayed to Mr. Nielsen. Delays by Mr.Nielsen in addressing this problemadequately and completely causedconsiderable extra time, expense andfrustrations to the Practice ReviewBoard and staff. It is incumbent on apractitioner as a professional obliga-tion to take the Practice Reviewprocess seriously. The practitionermust assist the Association in beingthorough and cost effective in thesereviews.

Order of theDiscipline Committee:We, the Discipline Committee of theAlberta Land Surveyors’ Association,upon finding Allan G. Nielsen, ALSguilty of unskilled practice of survey-ing and unprofessional conductpursuant to the Land Surveyors Actand regulations thereto, and afterreviewing and considering the submis-sion from Mr. Allan G. Nielsen, ALSwith respect to the aforementionedfindings, hereby assess the followingpenalties in this regard:1. a fine for the offence of unskilled

practice of surveying and unpro-fessional conduct in the amount of$1,000.00.

2. payment of the following:cost of legal fees, court reporterand expenses incurred by theAlberta Land Surveyors’ Asso-ciation for the Practice ReviewBoard hearing: $516.28; and costof legal fees, court reporter andexpenses incurred by the AlbertaLand Surveyors’ Association forDiscipline Committee hearing:$5,818.37

3. and that the practice of Allan G.Nielsen, ALS be monitoredcommencing immediately on aregular and continuous basis by a

senior Alberta Land Surveyoracceptable to the Practice Re-view Board at the expense ofAllan G. Nielsen, ALS and/orNielsen Land Surveys Ltd. untilsuch time the said senior AlbertaLand Surveyor is able to producea favourable report suitable to thePractice Review Board confirm-ing that all substandard practicedeficiencies have been rectifiedand all corrections to the surveyand preparation of R.W. Plan 9823578 have been completed in full.

This practice monitoring reviewand report shall include but not belimited to the following:• the fact that Mr. Nielsen hasindicated he intends to pursuemore oil/pipeline work is ofserious concern to this Committeebecause this is the very area ofpractice where serious deficien-cies were found. Therefore thefirst priority of the mentor as-signed to Mr. Nielsen is to con-duct an immediate and detailedreview of Mr. Nielsen’s officeand field procedures and toensure he correctly understandsand applies all the conceptsnecessary to carry out this type ofpractice in accordance with thecurrent accepted standard ofpractice.• review and confirmation thevolume of work does not exceedthe capabilities of this firm.• to confirm this practice doesnot undertake projects that arebeyond the scope of the practi-tioner and the firm.• detailed field and office prac-tices of this firm. This is toinclude office and field methodol-ogy, keeping of field notes,handling of recorded information,redundancies and recording ofsame, calculations, plan prepara-tion, plan closures and other planexamination methods.

4. The Practice Review Board toreview the report and recommen-dations provided by the surveyorassigned to this practice monitor-ing task and make such additionalrequests as may be found neces-

sary to carry out the intent of thisorder.

5. These findings and order bepublished in ALS News.

This order of the Discipline Com-mittee is hereby issued on the 26th dayof March A.D., 2001.

WM. R. HUNTER, ALSACTING CHAIRMAN, DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

Findings and Order ofthe DisciplineCommittee of theAlberta Land Surveyors’AssociationIn the matter of the Land SurveyorsAct (SA 1981, Chapter L- 4. 1) and inthe matter of a hearing of the Disci-pline Committee of the Alberta LandSurveyors' Association concerning theprofessional conduct of Mr. D. RaeSutherland, ALS and CanadianEngineering & Surveys Inc.

This hearing of July 2000 wasconducted as a result of a referralfrom the Practice Review Boardreferencing Systematic PracticeReview File #127.1

The hearing will address thefollowing allegations:I . The Practitioner's failure to live

up to his professional undertakingof August 6, 1998, namely:

a) To comply with the require-ments of Part D, Section 7.3 ofthe Manual of Standard Practicerespecting standards for RealProperty Reports and to locateand confirm sufficient surveymonuments to define the bounda-ries of the parcel according to the

Surveys Act;b) To show dimensions along re-established boundaries whichreflect field-derived measure-ments observed by his field stafffor Real Property Reports pre-pared by his firm.

2. The Practitioner's admission thathis Real Property Reports do not


meet many of the requirements ofthe Manual of Standard Practice.a) He describes these productsas "indicative surveys" and statesthat they are prepared in the bestinterests of his clients and thateconomic factors dictate that headopt this approach.b) He readily admits that he iscompleting a false affidavit whenhe signs his Real Property Re-ports using the RPR Affidavitprescribed in the Manual ofStandard Practice. In his ownwords, he acknowledges that heis "perjuring myself.”

3. The Practitioner’s admission thathe exercises a certain profes-sional discretion in the preparationof his "indicative survey reports"which allows him to arbitrarilychange dimensions derived by hissurveys to minimize conflicts withapplicable municipal bylaws whenshowing setback information onhis products.a) The Practitioner’s RPRchecklist, used by office person-nel, includes an item #13 thatstates, “can side yards bechanged to a minimum?”

Facts:Mr. Sutherland has been an activemember of our Association sinceNovember 9, 1951 holding Commis-sion #165. Mr. Sutherland also holdsMLS; SLS; and CLS commissions.Mr. Sutherland is also a P.Eng.

Mr. Sutherland has developed asystem of producing documents forlocation of residential buildings(RPRs) which does not follow theManual of Standard Practice withrespect to the Surveys Act.

Mr. Sutherland has appearedbefore the Practice Review Boardseveral times over the past few yearsdue to inconsistences discovered bythe first round of inspection by ourDirector of Practice Review.

Mr. Sutherland has adjusted hispractice to some degree in coopera-tion with the Practice Review Board.

Mr. Sutherland in his appearancesbefore the Practice Review Board

and this Discipline Committee finds itdifficult to answer questions clearlyand precisely.

Mr. Sutherland's product appearsprofessional and his office methodol-ogy was highly rated by the Directorof Practice Review.

Findings:1. (a) The Discipline Committee

does not condone departure fromPart D, Section 7.3 of the Manualof Standard Practice. It finds thatMr. Sutherland is in breach of theManual of Standard Practice. Hehas, over an extended period oftime, carried out surveys of RealProperty Reports under theAlberta Land Surveyors’ Asso-ciation umbrella but in non-compliance with the ALSAManual of Standard Practice. NoPractitioner can be exempt fromthe rules, standards and regula-tions that other ALSA membersmust follow. It is agreed, how-ever, that a certain amount ofdiscretion and professionaljudgement may be used by aqualified Practitioner providingsuch departures do not materiallyaffect the end product.

Allegation No. 1(a)Mr. Sutherland strongly believesthat certain parts of the Manualof Standard Practice are notapplicable to Real PropertyReports. It can be seen fromrecorded statements made by Mr.Sutherland on January 12, 2000and again on July 17, 2000 thatcomplete compliance with theManual of Standard Practice, inso far as Real Property Reportsare concerned, may be unrealisticin his view. No promises are onrecord that the Practitioner wouldcomply with all aspects of Part DSection 7.3 of the Manual ofStandard Practice particularlywith regard to (a) locate andconfirm sufficient survey monu-ments to define the boundaries ofthe parcel according to theSurveys Act; (b) to show dimen-

sions along re-established bounda-ries which reflect field-derivedmeasurements observed by hisfield staff for RPRs prepare byhis firm. The July 10, 1998 letterfrom the Systematic Practicereview (item 4) requests thePractitioner to provide a writtenintention of compliance with: (a)and (b) but no such undertakingor agreement is on record fromMr. Sutherland. In Mr. Suther-land's letter of August 6,1998, herequests that further research intothis matter (a) and (b) andconferencing with the PRBdelegates be made in order toderive an acceptable solution/definition.

2. (a) Mr. Sutherland readily admitsthat his RPRs do not necessarilycomply completely with therequirements of the Manual ofStandard Practice. He does,however, have full confidencethat his final product is true andcorrect. This Committee receivedno evidence that either disputednor confirmed this fact. It appearsfrom any information at ourdisposal that his clients are happywith his product and it is preparedwith the client interest in mind.(b) This question was not dealtwith specifically, as the term"perjury" was Mr. Sutherland'sown words and the Associationwas not trying to make an addi-tional issue that some form ofperjury took place.

3. (a) Mr. Sutherland's checklist didcontain an item "can side yards bechanged to a minimum.” Sideyards were adjusted up to 3cm inorder to conform to municipalrequirements. Mr. Sutherland hassince removed this item from hischecklist.

Findings of the Hearing:1) The defendant, Mr. Sutherland,

did not agree to the professionalundertaking as shown as item #4in the July 10, 1998 letter by thePractice Review Board. The


letter of July 16, 2000 from Mr.Sutherland explains the mistakethat was made in reversing theorder of items #4 & 5 in theAugust 6, 1998 letter. The Disci-pline Committee is disappointed atMr. Sutherland's disregard of theManual of Standard Practice, anddoes not excuse Mr. Sutherlandfor his actions.

2) The Practitioner does not preparehis RPRs in strict compliancewith the Manual of StandardPractice. The practitioner be-lieves the Manual allows profes-sional discretion, which he exer-cises in the preparation of hisRPRs. The Committee feelsprofessional discretion is allowed,but finds Mr. Sutherland mayhave over done his professionaldiscretion. Mr. Sutherland stateshis RPRs are prepared in the bestinterest of his clients and econom-ics. Mr. Sutherland did not locateall the governing evidence. TheCommittee received no evidenceto indicate locating extra evidencewould adversely affect his RPRs,The idea of using plan measure-ments instead of measureddistances is not a generallyaccepted procedure for anysurveys. The Committee has adifficult time with his procedureand cannot at this stage fullyaccept it. By showing thedisplacements of found evidencewith an azimuth and distance, thisin effect allows the overallmeasured distance to be calcu-lated and determined. Mr. Suther-land indicated to the Committeehe felt he was complying with theManual, but for different reasons.The aspect of not "digging up" allthe governing evidence can beaccepted by the Committee asbeing practical and in a lot ofcases not as upsetting to the"public." Mr. Sutherland appearsto exercise enough discretion asto when extra evidence should belocated. This Committee receivedno evidence to indicate otherwise.

3. (a) Mr. Sutherland admits sideyard dimensions may be adjusted

up to 3cm in order to comply withmunicipal bylaws. The Committeedid not find this as an overlyserious situation as it is theunderstanding of the Committeethat many surveyors performingRPR surveys practice a similarprocedure at times. We alsounderstand that approving authori-ties allow minor variances withthe published dimensions. Weunderstand that Mr. Sutherlandhas since removed this item fromhis check list.

The Discipline Committee herebyfinds Mr. Sutherland guilty of unpro-fessional conduct. The DisciplineCommittee has some grave concernsat the degree of departure Mr. Suth-erland has taken from the Manual ofStandard Practice.

CommitteeConclusions and OrdersThe Committee finds it disturbing thata matter of this nature could not havebeen resolved prior to a disciplinehearing. The use of a third partyinvestigator may have expanded thescope of evidence available to theDiscipline Committee. The Committeedoes not criticize Mr. Sutherland, Mr.Pratt or the Practice Review Board intheir approach to this matter. Allpersons and committees have handledthis process in a very professionalway and carried out their responsibili-ties to the best of their ability. Ourconcern is that our rigid structure ofgovernance reduces communicationon issues of this nature. This Disci-pline Committeefinds that therewas insufficientevidence pre-sented to showthat Mr. Suther-land's end product(RPRs) wasinferior given thelack of clientcomplaints orcomplaints fromother surveyorswho must occa-

sionally come across these "indicativesurveys." The major concern is thatthe survey work is not in compliancewith the Manual of Standard Practice.The Discipline Committee finds thatMr. Sutherland has used his "profes-sional discretion" beyond an accept-able level.

The Discipline Committee hasfound Mr. Sutherland guilty of con-duct unbecoming an Alberta LandSurveyor, but considers the offencewas not of such gravity as to warranta suspension or the striking of hisname from the Register, or to assessany costs the Association may haveincurred in this hearing. The Disci-pline Committee as a reprimandorders Mr. Sutherland to sit on thePractice Committee (RPR Sub-Committee) for two years where hecan share his ideas and perhaps helpchange the Manual if seen appropri-ate. The Committee strongly recom-mends that Mr. Pratt and Mr. Suther-land work together to modify Mr.Sutherland's product to more closelyadhere to the Manual of StandardPractice. This should be coordinatedwith and approved by the PracticeReview Board. If no satisfactorysolution can be agreed to within thenext 6 months or 1 year maximum thisCommittee would be prepared toreconvene and reassess the wholesituation.

Respectfully submitted this 17thday of April, 2001.

W.R. DABBS, ALSVICE CHAIRMAN, DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

ALL SEASON RENTALL SEASON RENTALL SEASON RENTALL SEASON RENTALL SEASON RENTALSALSALSALSALSRENTALS OF: Ski-doo • Harley Davidson

Sea-doo • Yamaha & Honda ATV, Motorcycles

PHIL RENAUDBus: (403) 204-1771 A17, 416 Meridian Road S.E.Fax: (403) 204-1770 Calgary, AlbertaCell: (403) 519-2967 T2A 1X2

email: [email protected]


Mele Rakai Appointed Faculty Member(LIS/LT) in Geomatics Engineering

U of CU of CU of CU of CU of Cnews

The Department is pleased to an-nounce that Ms. Mele Rakai has beenappointed in a tenure-track LandInformation Systems/Land Tenureposition. Mele holds an M.Surv.Sc.degree from the University of Mel-bourne (1994), and a B.Surveyingdegree from the University of Otago(1984). She is currently completingher Ph.D. on comparative analysisand modeling of cross-cultural landtenure systems at the University ofNew Brunswick, where she has alsobeen a research and teaching assist-ant.

Mele is Fiji’s first female licensedsurveyor and has worked in Fiji inboth the private and government

sectors, carrying out cadastral,topographical, engineering, geodeticand hydrographic surveys. She hasworked as a Senior Technical Officerin the Fiji Land Information Systems(FLIS) Program, where she wasresponsible for developing policies forFiji’s national LIS program. In 1996,she joined the University of the SouthPacific in Suva, Fiji as a lecturer,before coming to Canada to com-mence her Ph.D. in 1997. She is nowa permanent resident. Mele has beena Council Member of the Fiji Instituteof Surveyors, and is an AssociateMember of the New Zealand Instituteof Surveyors. She represented Fiji invarious meetings and conferences

hosted by the land tenure section ofthe UN’s Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) and by commis-sions 3 and 7 of the InternationalFederation of Surveyors (FIG). Shehas also been an invited speaker onaboriginal tenure and land informationsystems at various conferences inNew Zealand, Australia and theUnited States.

Her research interests include landtenure, aboriginal rights, land andgeographic information systems, landinformation management, land admin-istration and more recently, legalpluralism and women’s issues in land.Mele will begin her duties January2002.

Dr. Nico Sneeuw AppointedFaculty Member (Geodesy) in Geomatics EngineeringThe Department is pleased to announce that Dr. Nico Sneeuw has been ap-pointed to a tenure-track geodesy position. Dr. Sneeuw received a diploma inGeodetic Engineering from the Delft University of Technology (Netherlands) in1989 and a PhD in 2000 from the Technical University of Munich on his workon global gravity field modeling from satellite observations.

World Fellowship AwardCongratulations to Mrs. Nadia Shahriari who has been selected as the 2001-2002 World Fellowship recipient by the Delta Kappa Gamma InternationalSociety in the USA. This Society promotes professional and personal growth ofwomen educators and excellence in education. The value of the grant is $4,000(US). Nadia is one of two U of C recipients of the Delta Kappa Gamma WorldFellowships for the year 2001-2002.

Mrs. Nadia Shahriari is a graduate student under the supervision of Dr.Vincent Tao. Her field of study is Internet-based GIS and Data Compression.

Networks of Centres of ExcellenceThe Department of Geomatics Engineering is pleased to announce its participa-tion in the recently announced Auto21 Automobile of the 21st Century-Net-works of Centres of Excellence (NCE). Auto21 is one of four new targettedNCEs and has received the largest funding allocation of $23 million over thenext four years.

The overall mission of Auto21 is to create and foster a network of worldclass Canadian scientists, researchers and engineers, who will make uniquecontributions to the development of the automobile of the 21st century, itssystems and its impact on the health and on societal and environmental issues

Dr. Tao Wins AwardsThe Department of GeomaticsEngineering is pleased to announcethat Dr. Vincent Tao was selected asthe recipient of the 2001 TalbertAbrams Award for his paper “Semi-Automated Object MeasurementUsing Multiple-Image Matching fromMobile Mapping Image Sequences”published in the Journal ofPhotogrammetric Engineering andRemote Sensing. The award is givenby the the ASPRS - The Imaging andGeospatial Information Society(formerly the American Society forPhotogrammetry and Remote Sens-ing).

In addition, Dr. Tao won the 2000Alberta Young Innovator Award. Thisis a university-wide competition foryoung faculty members. In the 2000competition, four young scholars wereselected as recipients from acrosscampus to reward their outstandingresearch excellence.

The award carries a research grantof $20,000 which will support Dr.Tao’s innovative research on “ubiqui-tous mobile GIS and distributedgeocomputing.”


Leica(repeat)


AGM 2001: The President’s BallDon and Linda Jaques, Marge and Ken Allred, Judy and Larry Pals

Shirley and FredHingley

Debbie and JohnStephens

George and ColleenSmith

Ellen and MonroeKinloch

Joanne and JimHalliday

Lynn and BrianMunday

Steve and TamiYanish

Erik Holmlund andAshley Robertson

Larry Pals with apicture of himself

Pat and Herb Kiel

Donna and Tim Martin

Linda and DaveMcWilliam

Pipers Bob Baker and John Haggerty


EXEXEXEXEXCLCLCLCLCLUSIVE AUSIVE AUSIVE AUSIVE AUSIVE AGENTGENTGENTGENTGENTS FOR S FOR S FOR S FOR S FOR THE CTHE CTHE CTHE CTHE CCLS LCLS LCLS LCLS LCLS LAND SURAND SURAND SURAND SURAND SURVEVEVEVEVEYYYYYORS'ORS'ORS'ORS'ORS'PRPRPRPRPROFESSIONAL LIABILITOFESSIONAL LIABILITOFESSIONAL LIABILITOFESSIONAL LIABILITOFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE PRY INSURANCE PRY INSURANCE PRY INSURANCE PRY INSURANCE PROGRAMOGRAMOGRAMOGRAMOGRAM

Sun Life Plaza, West TowerSuite 2810, 144 - 4th Avenue S.W.Calgary, Alberta T2P 3N4Tel: (403) 264-8600Toll Free: 1-800-461-5142Fax: (403) 265-5505E-mail: [email protected]

505, 10104 - 103 AvenueEdmonton, AlbertaT6H 5R7Tel: (780) 421-7188Fax: (780) 421-7717

Land Surveyors’ Comprehensive Insurance Package• Surveyors' Equipment • Office Contents• Valuable Papers (Plans) • Computer Equipment• Commercial General Liability • Extra Expense

Inc.JARDINE LLOYD THOMPSON CANADA

Grace Kohn asEdit Cavell

Jeff Shea asDavid Thompson

Jeff Patton aka Mark “The Moose” Messier andJody Clayton

John HolmlundStaying Alive

Wayne LeeHip-notist

Purdy Smith servingcoffee at the PastPresidents’ Breakfast

Bob Fulton talkingabout Purdy

Great Entertainment!! Bev and GrantCross

Carol Labine andAlbert Rachynski

AGM 2001

Social Events


by Stutt Pottruff, Executive Managera s s m ta s s m ta s s m ta s s m ta s s m tnotes

We had a very suc-cessful 29thAnnual General Meet-ing in Jasper on April 20 and 21st.Past-President Kevin Laiss arrangedsome very useful sessions for us.

Jim Forster, CFP of AssanteFinancial Management gave us anexcellent overview of the perils we allface in planning our financial futureand recommended various tax strate-gies on how to minimize their impact.He stressed letting our money workfor us and to be patient.

Alan Strid asked Lyall Pratt, ALS,Director of Practice Review toaddress us on the priorities of evi-dence, marker posts and good surveyhabits. Thanks again Lyall for yourgood advice.

In the afternoon Farley McKenzie,CST of Cansel, Guy Anderson, CSTof First Order Measurement SolutionsInc. and Jay Kinoshita and MartyNorrad of Butler Survey Supplies Ltd.gave us glimpses of some of latestinnovations in survey instruments.They were fantastic.

Saturday saw us gather at theAmethyst Lodge for our AGM. Afterthe Reports of Council were adopted,elections for the new slate of officerswere held. Chris Pichach of Edmon-ton and Ken Revoy and DwightAdams of Calgary were elected asnew Councillors. Farley McKenziewas elected once more as Presidentand David Allen was elected as Vice-President. The new Council is:President: Farley McKenzieVice President: David AllenPast-President: Kevin LaissCouncil:Dwight AdamsGlen ErdelyWayne LatamChris PichachKen RevoyMike Spencer

During new business, the 2001budget was adopted, the web site orlink was reiterated as the sole placefor solicitation of employment, com-mittee mandates and members were

finalized andLethbridge

was chosen asthe site of ournext AGM in

2002—one weekafter the ALSA AGM and Conven-tion. We also decided to donate $500to the J.H. Holloway ScholarshipFoundation and to look at updating ourcertification process to make it moremeaningful.

Former ALSA Liaison Bob Bakerand our present Liaison Jim Hallidayjoined us for a part of the meeting andassisted us in our election process.

Farley McKenzie reported that hereceived a great deal of encourage-ment for the ASSMT from the ALSAAGM. It means a lot. Thank you. Wedo have a great new Council andsome great things have been happen-ing lately and more are to come.

At the end of our AGM, weenjoyed our annual draw. We wouldlike to thank the following firms whomade it possible. Those firms whodonated a total of $1,000 to our AGMexpenses:The Orthoshop (John McMurchy);Can-Am Surveys Ltd. (DonTomkinson); Walker, Newby SurveysInc. (Brian Wetter); Caltech SurveysLtd. (Paul Ellegood).

The following donated some prettynice prizes:• First Order Measurement

Solutions Inc.• Challenger Surveys &

Services Ltd.• Mountainview Systems Ltd./

Geodimeter• The Cadastral Group Inc.• All West Surveys Ltd.• Advance Industries• Northcan Surveys Ltd.• AltaLis Ltd.• Leica Geosystems Ltd.• Ensight Information Services Ltd.• Butler Survey Supplies Ltd.

The new Council held their firstmeeting on May 10th. Glen Erdelyreported that the NAIT-devised

Survey Assistant Course held therethe weekend of April 28-29 was agreat success. The course wasoversubscribed with some twenty-three registrants in all. There wereexams and the feedback was verypositive.

Glen approached NAIT to start theball rolling, handled all the advertisingand registration and helped theinstructor. We cite Glen for his greatjob and look forward to more success.

Public Relations Chair ChrisPichach reported that the web sitewww.edmonton411.net/assmt is upthanks to new webmaster HankCastello. We authorized him toregister the web site in our owndomain as www.assmt.ab.ca.

Chris is also working on some newglossy brochures which should bevery exciting. He is our new repre-sentative on the ALSA Public Rela-tions Committee as well.

Farley McKenzie continues on theALSA Professional DevelopmentCommittee. Once the web site is fullyoperational, we will run ads in Calgaryand Edmonton on who to contact forassistance. Glen is to approach NAITagain and investigate the possibility ofnew courses in Basic Survey Calcula-tions, Basic Total Stations, Levelling,Field Notes, Advanced Total Stationsand Calculation and GPS RTK.

Council meets again in June withcertifications on the agenda. Inwrapping up, we would like to wishKen Allred and the ALSA Councilwell as they commence another termof operations. Please don’t hesitateto contact me at (403) 244-3732, fax(403) 291-0399 [email protected] if I can beof assistance.

Have a great summer and I lookforward to joining you again at theALSA Golf Tournament.

ASSMTASSMTASSMTASSMTASSMTnotes


J.H. Holloway Scholarship Foundation

donorsKen Allred, ALSEarl AmankwahR.F. Baker, ALS

Dr. Brian BallantyneDick Bassil, ALS (Ret.)

Kevin Beatty, ALSBlaine Benson, ALSKen Berg, ALS (Ret.)Caltech Surveys Ltd.

Jim ChorelCam Christianson, ALS

Control Land Surveys (1982) Ltd.Don Dawson, ALS

Paul DelormeHarold DeWitt, ALSJohn Deyholos, ALS

Akram DinEnsight Information Services Ltd.

Stephen Fediow, ALSFulton & Associates Ltd.

Don George, ALSStephen Green, ALSBruce Gudim, ALS

Hamilton & Olsen Surveys Ltd.Duane Haub, ALSAlex Hittel, ALS

David Holmberg, ALS (Ret.)Norman JacquesHal Janes, ALS

K & M Survey Services Ltd.Kellam Berg Engineering & Surveys Ltd.

Doug Krempien, ALSDaniel Lachance, ALS

Gerard LachapelleRoger Leeman, ALS

L.R. Olson & Associates Ltd.Joseph Longo, ALS

Longstaff Land Surveying Ltd.Army MacCrimmon, ALS (Ret.)

Jim MacLeod, ALSBill Martin, ALS

Craig McBride, ALSDr. Alec McEwen

George Moore, ALSBrian Munday

Northland SurveysBuck Olsen, ALSGord Olsson, ALS

Henry Palindat, ALS (Ret.)Lyall Pratt, ALS

Jerald Rasmuson, ALS

March 1, 1997 — June 15, 2001Donors have contributed up to $500 to the Foundation.

Ted Rippon, ALSGail Robertson

Rose Country Communications Ltd.Russel Metals

SESL Geomatics Ltd.Kasimir Sawicki, ALS (Ret.)

Jim Sharpe, ALSShores Belzil

William SoroskiSharon Stecyk

Stewart, Weir & Co. Ltd.John Sung, ALS

Swenson Morrison Land SurveysRoss Tate, ALS (Ret.)

Allan Theriault, ALS (Ret.)Gordon M. Thomson

UMA GeomaticsDave Usher, ALSCharlie Weir, ALS

Dwayne Westacott, ALSWestacott Consulting Ltd.

Gordon WilliamsWolley-Dod & MacCrimmon Surveys

Kin Wong, ALSC.W. Youngs, ALS

Thank you for your generosity and support!

sponsorsMarch 1, 1997 — June 15, 2001

Sponsors have contributed $500 or more to the Foundation.All-Can Engineering & Surveys (1976) Ltd.

All West Surveys Ltd.Alpine Land Surveys Limited

Lou Breton, ALS (Ret.)Cadastral Group Inc., The

Can-Am Surveys Ltd.Challenger Surveys & Services Ltd.

Barry Clarkson, ALS

Crape Land Surveys Ltd.Focus Corporation Ltd., TheFrontier Survey Services Inc.

George Munro & Associates Ltd.Hagen Surveys (1976) Ltd.

Brian Huber, ALSLovse Surveys Ltd.

Maltais Associates Surveyors Ltd.

Bob Mayne, ALSMidwest Surveys Inc.Stanley Geomatics Ltd.Stantec Geomatics Ltd.Don Tomkinson, ALSUsher Canada Limited

Jack Webb, ALS

Craig McBride, ALSwas the lucky winner of the J.H.Holloway Scholarship Foundationdraw at the recent ALSA AGM inJasper. The prize, donated by RoseCountry Communications Ltd. was aframed print by Rick Berg titled “BullMoose.” The proceeds from the drawtotalled $1,350. Thank you to all thosethat purchased tickets.

Jerry Rasmuson presenting the draw prize toCraig McBride

The Winner The Foundation would also like tothank Ensight Information Services Ltd.for conducting the business card drawat the AGM. The winner of the draw,Bill Soroski, President of the Saskatch-ewan Land Surveyors’ Association,received a JHH tax receipt for $100. Don’t forget to buy your mulligans atthe upcoming ALSA golf tournament insupport of the J.H. Holloway Scholar-ship Foundation.

Date post:	05-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times