Which of the following circumstances is most likely to trigger a practice or assurance review of a professional’s overall practice by a regulator?

A practice or assurance review is typically triggered by information suggesting a professional's practice may not meet required standards, thereby posing a risk to the public. Persistent complaints from multiple clients about the quality of work create a clear pattern that raises concerns about competence, negligence, or unprofessional conduct. This pattern directly engages the regulator's mandate to protect the public and is a common and compelling reason to initiate a review of the professional's overall practice. Other options are either not within the regulator's purview or are addressed by different, more specific compliance programs.

A. Financial performance is an employment matter between the professional and their employer, not a direct concern for the regulator.

C. Failure to meet Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements is typically handled through the association's CPD audit process, not a full practice review.

D. Refusing service is a business decision, and unless it violates the code of ethics (e.g., discrimination), it is not a trigger for a practice review.

1. Andrews, G. C. (2019). Canadian Professional Engineering and Geoscience: Practice and Ethics (6th ed.). Chapter 4, p. 72, explains that the disciplinary process, which can be preceded or supplemented by a practice review, is often initiated by complaints from the public.

2. Marston, D. L. (2019). Law for Professional Engineers: Canadian and Global Insights (5th ed.). Chapter 22, pp. 430-431, discusses professional misconduct and incompetence, noting that complaints from the public are a primary source for initiating investigations.

3. APEGS Bylaws, Part 16, detail the investigation and discipline process, which is often triggered by a written complaint alleging incompetence or professional misconduct.