In December 2024, the AIBC published a new regulatory resource: Practice Guideline: Use of the Architect’s Seal, which replaced repealed Bulletin 60: Signature, Seal and Delivery of Electronic Documents, and Bulletin 61: Seal of an Architect.
The Practice Guideline: Use of the Architect’s Seal supplements the Professional Standards under heading 8.0 in Schedule A: Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (“Code of Ethics”) and AIBC Bylaws 4.96 to 4.99. It provides procedural and administrative information regarding the use of the Seal, in both physical and digital formats.
This Regulatory Review examines key concepts outlined in the Practice Guideline – specifically, reinforcing the types of documents that must be sealed and providing clarity on Direct Supervision requirements. Part 2 of this Regulatory Review will provide clarity on sealing requirements for specific documents and discuss the use of the digital Seal.
A review of the Practice Guideline: Use of the Architect’s Seal is encouraged before reading this Regulatory Review.
Exercising Professional Judgement
The Practice Guideline: Use of the Architect’s Seal is specifically referred to in Professional Standard 8.2, which requires Architects to “have regard for any Practice Guidelines…in relation to the use of the Seal”. In practice situations where the Professional Standards don’t address specific circumstances, an Architect can use this Guideline, as well as their professional judgement based on foundational sealing principles, to assess whether to apply the Seal.
Throughout this Regulatory Review, the critical role of applying professional judgement, grounded in a fundamental understanding of core principles and regulatory requirements, is emphasized.
Documents that Must be Sealed
Documents that are issued for public reliance, such as final drawings or those used for permitting and construction, must be sealed. Appendix A to the Practice Guideline provides a framework for evaluating which types of documents require sealing, based on their intended use. In contrast, documents created solely for internal purposes or for Client review during the preliminary design process do not require a Seal.
Professional Standard 8.3 specifically requires the following types of documents to be sealed by an Architect:
- Drawings and specifications issued for approval or reliance by any party;
- Letters of Assurance including but not limited to those issued under the BC Building Code and Vancouver Building Bylaw;
- Certificates for payment and certificate as to construction performance when acting as a payment certifier under contract; and
- Formal reports – including expert reports, building code or zoning analysis reports, building assessment reports, and written opinion.
Reports: What is a Formal Report?
Professional Standard 8.3 is clear that “formal reports” must be sealed. A ‘formal report’ is a document prepared by the Architect that provides professional advice and conclusions. Its ‘formal’ status is defined by its purpose and content: it reflects the Architect’s professional opinion, assessment, or direction, and is intended to be relied upon by others. It may be submitted to external parties (e.g., Authorities Having Jurisdiction, Clients, contractors) with the expectation that they will rely upon its content in decision-making or execution of work.
Field Review Reports
The BC Building Code requires field review to be conducted for complex buildings, and a record of this review to be documented. Field review reports are critical documents giving an Architect’s assessment on the progress of the work and the code compliance of the construction. The code requires that they be provided to the Authorities Having Jurisdiction upon request. They are not ‘informal’ reports, nor optional – as such, they are reports that require a Seal. Their importance in documenting regulatory compliance by the Architect confirms that field review reports must be sealed.
Direct Supervision of Field Services
While field review by BC Building Code definition requires physical attendance at the site, Architects may be assisted in conducting field review by on-site individuals who are under their Direct Supervision, for example, a field review specialist Architectural Technologist or an Intern Architect gaining experience – in either case – reporting to a supervising Architect. Direct Supervision does not necessarily require the physical presence of the Architect. Detailed information can be relayed in real time, or later, to the Architect at a remote location, and communication between the Architect, on-site staff, and the contractor can be facilitated through videoconferencing. Technical tools (such as drones, body-worn video cameras, and robots) can be used to facilitate documenting on-site conditions and gathering information, particularly in areas of buildings that were previously inaccessible or too hazardous for an Architect to review. It is important to recognize, however, that field review is the Architect’s responsibility to conduct. Cameras only reveal what they are aimed at, so if used for field review, the operator must be the Architect or a person the Architect supervises. Photographs or videos provided by others, such as the contractor, may be helpful to the Architect in understanding what is occurring on site, however review of this material does not constitute field review.
This information must be evaluated by the Architect for its worth, relevance, comprehensiveness, and so forth. Supervision of staff, review of data provided, and decision-making by an Architect are hallmarks of services requiring the Seal, including field review reports.
Direct Supervision – Basic Standards & Expectations
Direct Supervision plays a central role in the appropriate signing and sealing of documents, and is often a source of practice inquiries to the AIBC. An Architect’s Seal may only be applied by the Architect to documents prepared by them, or under their Direct Supervision. As a reminder, the Code of Ethics heading 6.0 – Architectural Services: Supervision establishes the foundational requirements for Architects providing Direct Supervision to non-architects. The Practice Guideline specifically addresses Direct Supervision in relation to the signing and sealing documents.
Obtaining assistance on architectural work from non-architects is a normal and accepted practice. While the degree of Direct Supervision may vary depending on the nature of the service being provided, and the abilities of the person supervised, delegation does not relieve Architects of their broader obligations under the Professional Standards.
Delegating work to appropriately-supervised Intern Architects plays a critical role in helping them acquire experience and exposure to essential aspects of architectural practice. The delegated work may involve preparing documents and developing other project deliverables. However, this must be accompanied by careful and consistent oversight by the Architect. Ultimately, the “authorship” of any prepared documents must belong to the Architect, confirmed with the Seal.
Whenever an Architect is reluctant to seal a document issued by their Firm, it raises the question: why not? If the reason is because the Professional Standard and Guideline specify this type of document should not be sealed, then that is appropriate. However, if the reason is that the Architect had such limited involvement in its preparation that they are not comfortable sealing it, this raises a serious concern which needs to be addressed. The Architect must provide a level of supervision such that they can confidently seal the document.
Best Practices for Noting Documents that Do Not Require the Seal
Documents that are issued but which are not required to be sealed should include a note to indicate the specific purpose behind their preparation and delivery. For example, noting “preliminary issued <date> for discussion” is good practice. It provides clarity to the reader of the documents, and clarity of the purpose of an issued document can reduce liability exposure for the Architect. The lack of the Seal on a document issued by an Architect should be clear, intentional, and appropriate, rather than appear as a contravention of the Professional Standards.
AIBC Contact
For more information about this Regulatory Review or if you have any questions about Direct Supervision, the use of the Seal, or any other practice matter, please email practiceadvice@aibc.ca.
Issues of AIBC Regulatory Review will be published on a regular basis, announced via Connected and archived on the AIBC website.