Kurt Popadynetz, ALS

Deadlines. Something we are all familiar with, whether imposed by others or set for ourselves. Some may be firm and immovable, while others may carry an unspoken sense of flexibility. Case in point, this article did not reach Michelle’s inbox exactly when it was initially scheduled. Now, while I know there is often a small grace period built into the article deadlines, it does not excuse missing them. Accountability matters. That same principle arose in a file that has been open for some time and was discussed again at the December Board meeting, where an ALS has been delinquent in meeting Board-imposed deadlines. The result is a special in-person meeting with the Board, intended to reinforce the professional responsibility we all carry when deadlines are set by others or by ourselves.
 
The theme of responsibility has carried through other areas of my work this year. Through the Dormant Plan Task Force, which met throughout 2025, attention focused on defining supervision, direction, and control, particularly regarding the assumption of professional responsibility related to legacy work. This resulted in the preparation of the supervision, direction, and control working paper, intended to provide guidance for Alberta Land Surveyors on scenarios that may not always align neatly with traditional methods of practice. Council approved the document in December for further consultation and dissemination, and it is now circulating to the membership for review and comment.
 
Work on the Systematic Practice Review continues through the SPR Task Force, which met in October and November. An initial framework was presented for discussion, building on the current procedures and processes established through the Continuing Competency Review (as we are all familiar with). The intent is to move toward a more top-down review structure, beginning at the business registrant level and extending through to individual registrants, rather than treating each review as an isolated exercise. While there are still many details to work through, a revised framework is expected to return to the task force in early 2026, with a subsequent presentation to Council once the structure is further refined.
 
In closing, below is a snapshot of the Practice Review Board’s activity over the past quarter.
 

‘Quarterly’ PRB Snapshot: 2 meetings held; October & December 2025	Continuing Competency Review: Phase 4 (As of November 27, 2025)
Files Reviewed: 20 Comprehensive Reviews Scheduled: 1Special In-Person Meeting Scheduled: 1 Plan Corrections Requested: 1 Commendations Issued: 22 Files Scheduled for Early Phase 5 Review: 0	Files opened: 360 Files opened yet to be reviewed by the PRB: 60 Files closed: 297 Files reviewed by the PRB and still open: 3 Files left to open: 43

 
PRB Recommendations/Commendations included variations of:

• Commends you for the actions taken since your previous review and for maintaining awareness of current standards and professional obligations in a non-authoring role.Encourages you to confer with fellow professionals, review literature and attend seminars as may be required to remain current on field and survey plan requirements should you wish to return to active practice.
•  Expects that you will increase your participation in both formal and informal educational activities. The PRB expects every ALS to spend at least eight hours per year on formal educational activity and at least twenty hours per year on informal educational activity.
• Commends you for your well-drafted plan and excellent field notes.
•  Expects you to ensure that the governing evidence is shown (found, lost or re-established) for every boundary you are retracing or intersecting, on future plans.
•  Encourages you to work with your field crews to ensure that all field work competed is fully documented.
•  Encourages you to regularly review your standard RPR title block to ensure it corresponds to what is recommended in the Manual of Standard Practice.
•  Expects that, to protect the public and as per the Code of Ethics, you take action to prevent boundary uncertainties and preserve the cadastral fabric. This may involve removing disturbed monuments (with permission if required) and in some cases, re-establishing monuments and/or filing monument plans.