CEAB’s Faculty Licensure Changes: What Happens Next and How to Prepare

The Engineers Canada consultation on faculty licensure criteria closed on August 3, 2026. As of mid-October 2026, Engineers Canada has not published the outcome, a revised proposal, a Board decision or an effective date. This post separates what is on the record from what is still open, and shows how to prepare without guessing.

If you submitted comments, thank you. If you didn't, the question is still the same one every coordinator is asking: "Okay, so what do I actually need to do differently?" The honest answer today is: nothing in the criteria has changed yet, but it is worth knowing exactly what was proposed.

Where Things Stand

In October 2025, the Engineers Canada Board mandated the CEAB, under the Realizing Futures of Engineering Accreditation (RFEA) project, to develop and recommend changes to the accreditation criteria associated with Recommendations 7, 8 and 9 of the FEA Path Forward Report, which relate to faculty licensure requirements. The CEAB approved a national consultation at its May 2026 meeting, and the consultation ran from June 22 to August 3, 2026 [1].

What has not been announced, at the time of writing:

• The consultation outcome. Engineers Canada's reports and consultations page still lists the faculty licensure consultation under "Open consultation (2026)" and shows no consultation report for it [2]. Earlier consultations on that page do have published reports, so one may follow, but no date has been given.
• Any revision to the proposal.
• Any decision by the CEAB or the Engineers Canada Board.
• An effective date or transition period. The consultation materials we reviewed do not set one.

So the sequence of review, revision, approval and implementation is the normal shape of a consultation, but we can't tell you how long any step will take, and we won't put numbers on it. Any timeline you see quoted elsewhere, including in earlier versions of this post, that isn't traceable to an Engineers Canada announcement should be treated as a guess.

What Was Proposed

The consultation document, prepared with the CEAB's Policies and Procedures Committee and members of the Engineering Deans Canada Deans' Liaison Committee, proposes to refine criteria 3.1, 3.4.4.6 and 3.5.4, and to remove criteria 3.4.4.1, 3.4.4.4 and 3.5.5, with matching updates to the Interpretive statement on licensure expectations and requirements [2] [3]. In plain language:

• Remove the Specific AU criteria. Criterion 3.4.4.1 (600 AU of engineering science and design delivered by faculty holding, or progressing toward, licensure) and 3.4.4.4 (225 AU of engineering design delivered by licensed faculty) would be removed. The document's rationale, citing Recommendation 7.d of the Path Forward Report, is that these created an indirect metric with no assurance that the intended outcome was achieved [3].
• Remove 3.5.5. The criterion that faculty delivering engineering science or design content are expected to be licensed would be removed as superfluous in light of the other proposed changes [3].
• Reword 3.4.4.6 (capstone). The significant design experience would be conducted under the "overall professional responsibility of a licensed professional engineer," and different models may be used provided professional responsibility and accountability are clearly demonstrated. The wording no longer says "faculty" or "Canadian-licensed" [3].
• Reword 3.5.4 (faculty expertise). The assessment moves to the faculty complement as a whole, which must demonstrate appropriate depth, diversity and distribution of qualifications, experience, scholarship, engineering practice and professional engagement. The document states this does not imply that every faculty member must be licensed [3].
• Reword 3.1 (Professionalism graduate attribute). The attribute would be framed as a graduate outcome: understanding the roles and responsibilities of the professional engineer in society within the context of a regulated profession in Canada, including licensure, self-regulation and accountability [3].

Engineers Canada describes the aim as better supporting the substantial and meaningful involvement of licensed engineers with students by shifting away from indirect input measures toward criteria that more directly reflect the intended outcomes of that involvement [1]. That echoes Recommendation 7 of the Path Forward Report, which asks the CEAB to endorse that principle, allow HEIs more flexibility in how they achieve it, and remove the Specific AUs criteria and the licensed-faculty requirement for the capstone [4].

What Is In Force Today

Until the CEAB and the Engineers Canada Board act, the current criteria apply. The most recent edition we found is the 2025 Accreditation Criteria and Procedures (revised November 2025), and it still contains criterion 3.4.4.1 (600 AU delivered by faculty holding, or progressing toward, licensure), 3.4.4.4 (225 AU of engineering design delivered by licensed faculty), 3.4.4.6 (capstone under the professional responsibility of licensed faculty) and the Interpretive statement on licensure expectations and requirements, including its "minimum path" approach to counting team-taught courses [5].

In other words, your Specific AU counts, and your licensure evidence for the capstone, remain what visiting teams will look for in the cycles currently scheduled. Engineers Canada publishes resources for the 2025-2026, 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 accreditation cycles [6]; check the cycle you are in rather than assuming the proposed wording applies.

Evidence Management: Plan for Both Cases

Because the outcome is unknown, the practical move is to keep what the current criteria require and begin collecting what the proposal points toward. The proposal itself suggests where the emphasis would land: accountability for the capstone, a faculty complement that shows breadth across practice and professional engagement, and graduates who can show they understand the regulated profession.

Keep doing (required now): the faculty list with licensure status, the courses each person delivers, and the AU totals calculated according to the current Interpretive statement.

Start collecting (useful under either outcome):

• Who holds overall professional responsibility for each capstone, and how that responsibility is documented
• Faculty role descriptions showing how licensed engineers contribute beyond lecture delivery, such as curriculum design, assessment, mentoring and capstone supervision
• Evidence of the faculty complement's collective experience, scholarship, engineering practice and professional engagement
• Assessment evidence that graduates understand licensure, self-regulation and professional accountability, linked to your Professionalism graduate attribute data

None of this is a stated requirement of the proposal. It is a reasonable reading of what the draft wording would ask programs to show, and every item is useful for the current cycle anyway.

Five Steps to Take Now

1. Audit your current evidence.

What do you collect about licensed faculty involvement today? Is it only a licensure status field and an AU spreadsheet, or can you also show how licensed engineers shape student learning? Note the gap.

2. Talk to your department chair.

Faculty licensure touches hiring, course assignment and capstone oversight. Make sure your chair knows the proposal exists, that it is not yet adopted, and that the current criteria still govern your next visit.

3. Map licensed faculty contributions.

Go beyond the AU count. For each licensed engineer, record how they contribute: lectures, labs, mentoring, capstone responsibility, curriculum design. This baseline is useful whichever way the criteria go.

4. Check that your system can hold more than a yes/no field.

Can your spreadsheet, document tool or platform link faculty credentials to courses, to graduate attributes and to assessment results? If not, that is worth fixing before your next self-study, regardless of the outcome of this consultation.

5. Watch the official channels.

Engineers Canada's reports and consultations page and the RFEA project page are where an outcome or decision would appear [2] [7]. Engineers Canada also offers an Accreditation Matters subscription with monthly updates on consultations and Accreditation Board meetings [6]. Update your plan when something is announced, not before.

Why It Is Worth Paying Attention

The licensure proposal is one piece of the RFEA project, which is implementing recommendations from the Path Forward Report that the Engineers Canada Board has approved [7]. The same report recommends a broader shift to outcomes-focused accreditation and removing AU-based curriculum content criteria [4]. Whether and when those recommendations become criteria is a matter for the CEAB and the Board, and we can't predict it. Meanwhile, Engineers Canada has published Tandem resources to support HEIs' transition to the new submission system [6].

Programs that keep their evidence connected, from faculty to courses to outcomes, will be in a better position for any of the likely outcomes. That is a judgement, not an announcement, but it is a cheap one to act on.

Final Thought

The consultation is over, but the decision is not. Keep meeting the criteria that are in force, build the evidence habits that would serve you under the proposal, and wait for Engineers Canada to say what happens next.

If you're evaluating how to organize your accreditation evidence for the next cycle, we'd welcome a conversation.

References

1. Engineers Canada, "National consultation: Proposed changes to accreditation criteria related to faculty licensure requirements," Engineers Canada, Jun. 11, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://engineerscanada.ca/news-and-events/news/national-consultation-proposed-changes-to-accreditation-criteria-related-to-faculty-licensure-requirements
2. Engineers Canada, "Reports and consultations," Engineers Canada. [Online]. Available: https://engineerscanada.ca/accreditation/about-accreditation/reports-and-consultations
3. Engineers Canada, "Document for consultation: proposed changes and rationale," Engineers Canada, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://engineerscanada.ca/sites/default/files/2026-06/Document%20for%20consultation_ENG.pdf
4. Engineers Canada, "Futures of Engineering Accreditation: Path Forward Report," Engineers Canada, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://engineerscanada.ca/sites/default/files/2025-08/FEA%20Path%20Forward%20Report.pdf
5. Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board, "2025 Accreditation Criteria and Procedures (revised November 2025)," Engineers Canada, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://engineerscanada.ca/sites/default/files/2025-12/2025-Accreditation_Criteria_Procedures-EN.pdf
6. Engineers Canada, "Accreditation resources," Engineers Canada. [Online]. Available: https://engineerscanada.ca/accreditation/accreditation-resources
7. Engineers Canada, "Realizing Futures of Engineering Accreditation," Engineers Canada. [Online]. Available: https://engineerscanada.ca/accreditation/realizing-futures-of-engineering-accreditation

Related Reading

• Faculty Licensure Changes: What CEAB Coordinators Need to Know Right Now
• Your CEAB Evidence Map Checklist: What to Prepare Before the Changes Take Effect
• Tandem: CEAB's New Submission System, a Coordinator's Practical Guide

This post is based on Engineers Canada publications reviewed in October 2026. It is intended to help accreditation coordinators plan and does not constitute legal or regulatory advice. The proposed criteria have not been adopted; always refer to official Engineers Canada and CEAB documentation for definitive guidance.