Free Practice Questions for APEGS NPPE Exam

To minimize the risk of litigation from clients, the most important action a licensed professional consultant can undertake is ensuring that there is a detailed, written contract with every client. Such a contract should clearly outline the scope of work, responsibilities, and terms of engagement, which helps prevent misunderstandings and legal disputes by providing clear documentation of agreements and expectations .

Primary professional liability insurance provides the first layer of coverage up to stated limits for covered claims (often negligence-based errors and omissions). Secondary (or excess/umbrella) professional liability insurance is designed to add additional limits above the primary policy and may “sit over” the primary coverage once the primary limit is exhausted, subject to terms and conditions. It does not replace the primary policy (A), and it is not reserved only for sole practitioners (C); firms and individuals may purchase excess coverage depending on project risk and contractual requirements. Secondary coverage is not inherently “more comprehensive” in scope than primary coverage (D); it is typically more about increasing the limit of indemnity rather than expanding covered causes of loss (and it may follow the form of the primary policy). Therefore, the correct statement is that secondary professional liability insurance supplements primary insurance (B).

The statement that a written agreement is required for an employee to be bound by an obligation of confidentiality is false. Generally, confidentiality obligations can be established through implied contractual terms or explicit verbal agreements depending on the nature of the employment and the information disclosed. This reflects a broader understanding that confidentiality can be a standard expectation in professional settings without necessitating a written agreement .

The most ethical action the geoscientist can take now is to continue working diligently on their projects. This approach shows professionalism and dedication to their duties, respecting confidentiality and the sensitive nature of organizational decisions like staff reductions. Engaging in actions that undermine the company or involve retaliation does not align with professional ethics. The responsibility of the geoscientist is to maintain their professional integrity and focus on their work despite the challenging circumstances​​.

Professional regulators conduct practice/assurance reviews on individuals primarily to ensure that the continuing professional development requirements are met by every licensed professional. This is part of the regulatory framework that helps maintain professional standards and protects public safety by ensuring practitioners remain competent in their respective fields .

The firm should have accepted only work for which they were competent to perform. Since the project involving a highly technical control system was beyond their existing capabilities, they should not have accepted it (Option A). This action aligns with professional ethics that emphasize competence, as professionals are obligated to undertake only tasks for which they are qualified, ensuring safety, efficacy, and client satisfaction. By undertaking work beyond their competence, the firm risked project success, client trust, and professional reputation.

Engineering and geoscience professions benefit society by protecting public safety and welfare through ethical practice and competence expectations (A), contributing technical expertise that advances research, innovation, and development (C), and supporting economic activity and responsible resource development while considering environmental stewardship (D). However, the professions themselves do not “pass laws.” In Canada, laws and legislation are enacted by legislatures (federal or provincial/territorial), not by professions. Professional regulators are created by legislation and may develop bylaws, standards, and guidelines within their delegated authority, but that is not the same as passing legislation. Therefore, B does not reflect the profession’s value to society and is inaccurate in describing how legal authority is created.

This scenario is about moderation—avoiding extravagance while not being miserly—by choosing a balanced approach (“modest yet elegant”). That aligns most directly with virtue ethics (Aristotelian ethics), which emphasizes moral character and the “golden mean”: choosing a balanced path between extremes of excess and deficiency. Option C explicitly describes this. Option A (natural rights) is about political/legal rights rather than moderation in organizational behaviour. Option B reflects deontological duty ethics (doing the right thing regardless of outcome), but it does not specifically explain the rationale of moderation between extremes. Option D reflects utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number), which could support many decisions, but the scenario’s reasoning is most clearly about temperance and appropriate conduct given circumstances—hallmarks of virtue ethics. Therefore, C best supports their rationale.

The statement that an environmental site assessment (ESA) follows the same process as an environmental audit is false. While both ESAs and environmental audits assess environmental compliance and issues, an ESA specifically focuses on assessing potential contamination of a site, often as part of property transactions, whereas an environmental audit evaluates compliance with environmental laws and regulations across operations .

An ESA is a due diligence process used to identify actual or potential environmental contamination and associated liabilities related to a property. It typically involves records review, site reconnaissance/inspection, interviews, and identification of recognized environmental conditions; where warranted, it may progress to sampling and testing (often described as Phase I/Phase II). Its purpose is to assess environmental risks and liabilities that could affect owners, purchasers, lenders, or operators. That aligns with option B. Option A describes remediation planning and implementation, which may follow an ESA but is not the ESA itself. Option C describes a broad environmental impact assessment (EIA/EA) focused on future project impacts, not property contamination liability. Option D relates to land-use planning and development feasibility, not environmental liability identification. Therefore, B is correct.