Terri-Jane Yuzda

STIPULATED ORDER: Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng.

Editor's Note: APEGGA Council requires that The PEGG publish Discipline Committee decisions. Following are pertinent details of a stipulated order in a case involving Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., and decided upon by the committee on Jan. 13, 2003. Because this is a stipulated order, no formal Discipline Committee hearing was necessary.

The Investigative Committee of APEGGA has concluded an investigation into the conduct of Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., in relation to services provided to MacGregor Real Estate Ltd. As a result of its investigation and based on the evidence and information brought to the attention of the Investigative Committee, the committee proposed the following findings, which Mr. Hagstrom accepted.

Agreed Statement of Facts

1. That at all material times, Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., was a registered member of APEGGA in good standing.

2. That Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., submitted a proposal dated Nov. 6, 2000, on behalf of Sabatini Earth Technologies Inc. to MacGregor Real Estate Ltd. to do the geotechnical and hydrological field testing and studies needed to obtain approval from the County of Parkland for the development of a country residential subdivision.

3. The proposal to MacGregor Real Estate Ltd. referred to the requirements of Alberta Environment Protection, AEP's Guidelines and the Water Act, implying that these would be satisfied. Mr. Hagstrom has confirmed that the intent was in fact that these would be satisfied.

4. Section 23 of the Water Act requires a subdivision proponent to demonstrate "that the diversion of 1,250 cubic metres of water per year . . . for each of the households within the subdivision will not interfere with any [existing users]." Alberta Environment's Report Requirements Under Section 23 of the Water Act for Subdivision Development (AEP's Guidelines), dated Aug. 16, 1999, says, in part, "The required report should be a culmination of a process that includes . . . a preliminary pumping test . . .[and] . . .a constant rate pumping test. . . ."

5. The methodology and work plan set out in the proposal referred to made no reference to a pumping test. Mr. Hagstrom has confirmed that he was not aware in November 2000 that a pumping test would be needed.

6. The County of Parkland has withheld approval of the proposed subdivision, in part or wholly because the Guidelines' requirements pursuant to Section 23 of the Water Act have not been fulfilled.


1. That the conduct of Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., in the foregoing respects constitutes unprofessional conduct and a violation of Rule of Conduct No. 2 of the APEGGA Code of Ethics in that:

a. Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng.,'s knowledge of regulatory matters relative to services to be provided was incomplete and not up-to-date,

b. Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., did not have sufficient training/experience relative to provincial requirements to advise the client of the full scope of tests that would or could be required to meet the project's objective, and the probable cost, at a time when the client could be expected to be weighing the question of whether or not to proceed, and

c. Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng.,'s combination of knowledge and experience of standards required to be applied to hydrogeological aspects of the client project does not meet professional standards of a senior consultant acting independently in responsible charge of such a project.


That Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., be reprimanded for unprofessional conduct.

Home | Past PEGGs | PEGG Search | Contact Us