HOME    |     ABOUT APEGGA    |     REGULATORY AFFAIRS    |     CONTACT US

july 2008 Issue

next article |

previous article |

table of contents

Professional Practice

APEGGA Discipline Committee Recommended Order

 

Background
APEGGA's Investigative Committee concluded an investigation into the conduct of [the Member and the Permit Holder] (the Members) with respect to structural engineering services on a residential preserved wood foundation. The Members have freely and voluntarily admitted to unprofessional conduct and have agreed with certain facts and findings. Under those circumstances, the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act permits the Investigative Committee to recommend an order that the committee considers appropriate instead of referring the matter for a formal hearing.

A recommended order must be provided to a member of the Discipline Committee who has been designated to act as a case manager to review the order. If the case manager or the investigated person rejects the order, the matter must be referred to the Discipline Committee for a formal hearing.

Agreed Statement of Facts
The Investigative Committee has provided a statement of facts to which the committee and the Members have agreed. The agreed statement is reproduced, verbatim, in its entirety:

  1. “At all material times [the Member] was registered as a professional engineer with APEGGA.”

  2. “At all material times [the Permit Holder] held a valid Permit to Practice for engineering with APEGGA.”

  3. “In November 1992, [the Members] provided certificates of compliance for the satisfactory completion of construction of a preserved wood foundation for [a Calgary property] to the City of Calgary Planning and Building Department.”

  4. “[The Calgary property] was purchased by its current owner in May 1993.”

  5. “From 2001 to the present the house on the property suffered from the ingress of water through and under the preserved wood foundation.”

  6. “In July 2006, the current property owner complained to APEGGA about the service provided by [the Members] in regards to the certification provided to the City of Calgary upon completion of the construction of the house in 1992.”

  7. “During the course of remediation of issues with the foundation, several deficiencies in the original construction were noted, including but not limited to:

a)         Backfilling with soil instead of granular free draining rock
b)         Absence of an external 6 mil poly vapor barrier
c)         Lack of caulking on plywood joints
d)         Absence of vapor barrier under concrete basement floor
e)         Lack of caulking between plywood sheathing and concrete footing.”

Conduct (Finding)
The Members have admitted that their conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct in the following respects:
“In providing a final inspection report indicating that the finished construction met all required Codes and Standards and was done in accordance with the project’s approved plans and specifications without adequate verification, [the Members] contravened Section 44(1)(b) of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act and the APEGGA Code of Ethics.”

Section 44(1)(b) states: “Any conduct of a professional member, licensee, permit holder, certificate holder or member-in-training that, in the opinion of the Discipline Committee or the Appeal Board, contravenes a code of ethics of the profession as established under the regulations, whether or not that conduct is disgraceful or dishonourable, constitutes either unskilled practice of the profession or unprofessional conduct, whichever the Discipline Committee or the Appeal Board finds.”

Orders
The Investigative Committee has recommended the following orders:

  1. [The Members] are to be issued a letter of reprimand for unprofessional conduct.

  2. [The Member] is to write and pass the APEGGA Professional Practice Examination within 12 months of the date of this order.

  3. This order is to be published without names in The PEGG magazine.

  4. The registration of [The Member] is to be suspended in the event that order number 2 is not completed in the time specified until such time that it is completed.

As the case manager designated by the Discipline Committee to review the matter, I agree with the recommended orders.

During my discussion of the orders with [the Member], he confirmed that he agrees with the recommended orders.

Therefore, in accordance with Section 52 of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act, this order has the same force and effect as if it had been made by the Discipline Committee following a formal hearing.

Dated this 22nd day of May, 2008.