I quoted to do this Job a couple weeks ago.
Saw someone doing it today so took some pictures.
There is no new grounding, The service conductors in the mast looks like ACWU to me and I assume that the mast would not acceptable for new service equipment.

more pics

some more

Is that EMT entering the meter can?

That penetration into the home looks very cheesy.

The whole effort looks like it'll leak.

One can only imagine the workmanship attained inside.

An approved mast assembly has 3 supports on the mast pipe and the 3rd strap on the EMT does not count as support on the mast and I only see 2 on the actual mast. Can't tell if it is a mast or rigid pipe either. the acwu out the bottom show the care that electrician took and the 2 EMT straps so close to each other also makes me wonder. Not even duct seal at the entry to the house. I am sure the homeowner doesn't know he got a crap job if his lights are working. Looks like a 60 amp service but I cannot really tell the ACWU wire size.

I'm not keen on acwu from the meter to the panel, but I can remember when the refrigeration lines to an air conditioner where cut and welded. Now, everyone uses a pre-charged line and it's the new norm. I suppose acwu could be the new thing for services. It's ugly, but so are pot lights and everyone has them.

By the way, how do you get three straps on an 8 foot mast? One foot above the rack, three feet above the roof and one foot in the soffit, leaves three feet for straps. (You can't put a thru-bolt at the roof line on a cottage roof) That puts three supports on three feet of mast.

Mast kits in Saskatchewan don't even come with three straps.

Looks pretty poopy to me. Looks like some kind of temp service or something. Problem is that i know its not. We use ACWU but it enter the meter from the back and runs inside the wall then through the plate and subfloor. Not bad because its never seen. I still prefer the look and installation using PVC.

Look at the Appendix B note for rule 6-112(4). It describes an approved mast assembly. Any variance from that is not an approved assembly and should require an engineers statement that the mast meets the sideload requirements as laid out in the note or a general variance by provincial bulletin etc.
One clamp at the soffit, one at the bottom and 1 in the middle. This mast in the photo could have been a 10 foot with an offset adaptor at the bottom. An approved mast needs 3 mast straps so if Saskatchewan allows this then I might like to see how they approve them. Frankly an 8 foot mast is usually too short to meet the cantilever load and still get 915 mm above the roof.

It doesn't say one at the soffit. It says "the upper one being located at the roof line". It's a good thing it's in the appendix and not a rule?

I guess the phrase "An assembly considered to be installed in an acceptable manner is one which..." doesn't mean other assemblies are not considered to be installed in an acceptable manner. For example, it appears from your comment that you consider the upper support at the soffit to be acceptable, even though that is well below the roof line. Maybe two supports are acceptable when one passes through a structural member.

I like the way they ran the conductors around the mast, so if the messenger wire ever fails itll still have insulation between the mast and live conductors. I would say thats poor workmanlike, IMO

OK we may be splitting hairs here but the depth between the top on the roof and under the soffit is max 6" so my at the soffit comment is at the roof line in the photo. Now if the drop from the roof line to the soffit was a foot or 2 than I would expect the first mast clamp above the soffit at the roof line as you correctly point out. I get your point and just the text of my reply misses that. I suppose if the AHJ accepts that other assemblies meet the necessary assembly strength then great but we take a more literal approach and 2 clamps is 1 shy of compliant.
My challenge to the AHJ is by what criteria do they accept 2 clamps? What engineer or alternate method do they accept less than 3 clamps? How did they arrive at that conclusion and under what risk model does it work? What mast manufacturer says 2 clamps meets their design parameters? You see I don't disagree that your point is valid I just would ask how another AHJ arrives at a lesser than appendix B install? How did they come to accept 2 mast clamps instead of the 3 described in the CEC.
I also expect you know that appendix B is just an explanation of the rules and not code.

As far as I can see, that is just plain rough.
I'm not sure about you guys, but I would have installed two stays to the masthead (at 120 degrees) to counter-act the pull of the "messenger wire".

Since when were non-enclosed terminations acceptable to any power authority?

Trumpy:
what are you referring to as 'non enclosed terminations'??

nice tech job going into the house, what was this done in michigan,lol