NPPE Exam Dumps - National Professional Practice Examination (NPPE) Exam

A foundational principle of incorporation is limited liability: the corporation is a separate legal entity, and shareholders, directors, and officers are generally not personally responsible for ordinary corporate debts and obligations solely by virtue of their corporate roles. Therefore, directors/officers are typically not personally liable for an unsecured corporate debt (A), unless they personally guaranteed it or specific statutory provisions apply. By contrast, personal liability can arise for misconduct or for obligations imposed by statute. Fraudulent misrepresentation (B) can create direct personal liability because it is intentional wrongdoing. Unpaid employee wages (C) may attract personal liability under various employment standards/corporate statutes that can make directors responsible in defined circumstances (often subject to limits and conditions). Tax evasion (D) is a criminal matter; individuals involved can be personally liable, including directors/officers who direct, participate in, or acquiesce in the offence. Thus, A is the best answer: it is the category directors and officers generally cannot be held personally liable for, absent a personal guarantee or special statutory exception.

The most reasonable course of action for the professional, when assigned as a mediator in a dispute involving a family member's company, is to immediately announce their relationship and remove themselves from the assignment (Option C). This decision upholds the professional's duty to avoid conflicts of interest and ensures the mediation process remains impartial and credible.

Construction lien statutes exist because typical secured-credit tools (like repossession or conventional security interests) are not well-suited to construction: work and materials are incorporated into land and cannot realistically be “taken back,” and many parties contribute before receiving payment (A, B). A lien is a statutory security interest that attaches to the project land/improvement to help ensure payment down the construction pyramid. Registering a lien generallyencumberstitle, making the property harder—not easier—to sell or refinance until the lien is discharged, vacated, or resolved. This pressure creates an incentive for owners to address claims so financing and transactions are not disrupted. Therefore, statement C is false because it reverses the practical effect: a registered lien typically makes the property more difficult to sell or borrow against and incentivizes settlement, not non-settlement. Statement D reflects common payment-control practices (e.g., progress payment certification, holdbacks, proof of delivery/work completion, lien waivers/statutory declarations) used by owners to reduce risk of paying for incomplete or undelivered work/materials.

The incorrect statement regarding a licensed Canadian professional working outside of Canada is that Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) legislation typically protects employers for work done outside of Canada. WCB coverage generally applies to work within Canada, and different arrangements or insurance may be needed when working internationally .

NPPE ethics distinguishes between legal/professional obligations and an individual’s personal moral beliefs. If the requested task is within competence, lawful, and not a clear breach of the Code of Ethics, the professional is not automatically obligated to perform it; however, the response should remain professional, honest, and respectful of the employment relationship. The appropriate initial step is to communicate directly with the employer, explain that the professional is unwilling to proceed for personal reasons, and (where feasible) request reassignment or propose an alternative approach. That aligns with option C. Option A is inappropriate because ignoring instructions is unprofessional and can create employment consequences and operational risk. Option B is not appropriate because regulators address professional misconduct/unlicensed practice and public-interest concerns; a task that is not illegal or unethical under the Code is not typically a regulator matter. Option D is unnecessary and potentially disruptive as an initial response; it shifts the issue into workplace activism rather than handling it through proper internal communication. Therefore, C is the best action.

---

In hiring, appropriate questions are those that are directly related to bona fide occupational requirements and job performance, while avoiding questions that intrude into protected personal grounds or could be discriminatory. For many field roles in mining, a valid driver’s licence is often a legitimate job requirement due to travel to remote sites, operation of vehicles, and safety/logistics needs. Therefore, asking whether the applicant has a valid driver’s licence (B) is appropriate. Asking when an applicant graduated high school (A) can indirectly reveal age and is generally unnecessary if the goal is to confirm education level—better asked as “Do you meet the required education/certification?” Asking about participation in public protests (C) can infringe on protected freedoms and is typically irrelevant to job competence. Asking whether the applicant initiated complaints against former employers (D) is also inappropriate and can be retaliatory or unrelated to job requirements, and may chill legitimate reporting. Thus, B is the appropriate question.

It is most unlikely that a conflict of interest will arise in a situation where a consultant suggests a technical change that reduces the consultant's workload and the client benefits from a similar reduction in fees. This scenario represents a mutually beneficial arrangement that transparently reduces costs for both parties without any undisclosed personal gain at the client's expense. The consultant’s actions align with ethical practices by openly adjusting the fees to reflect the reduced workload, thus avoiding any conflict of interest​​.

The condition that may be absent from a tort action without affecting the success of the lawsuit is that the defendant had a service agreement with the plaintiff (Option C). For a tort action to be successful, it generally must be shown that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused damages or loss as a result of that breach. Whether or not a service agreement existed between the parties is irrelevant to the establishment of these elements, especially if the harm resulted from a negligent act that violated a duty of care inherent in the defendant's actions or omissions.