APRIL 2008 Issue
Professional Practice
APEGGA Discipline Committee Decision
In the matter of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act
and
In the matter of the conduct of [a member and a permit holder]
Background
APEGGA’s Investigative Committee concluded an investigation into the conduct of [a member and a permit holder] (the “Members”) with respect to renovations to a [Calgary property]. 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 [without names or full address but otherwise in its entirety]:
1. “At all material times [the Member] was a professional engineer in good standing with APEGGA and [the permit holder] held a valid Permit to Practice with APEGGA.”
2. “[the Member] and [the permit holder] were contracted to provide structural engineering services to [the complainant] in March 2006.”
3. “[the Member] prepared the requested set of drawings and issued them with his stamp by the end of March 2006. An invoice for this work was submitted to [the complainant] in early May, 2006 and was paid promptly. It was determined that, after a review of the proposed plans by the City of Calgary that further changes of the structure required that a revised set of structural drawings were required.”
4. “The services were required as part of a residential property renovation being managed by [the complainant] for clients who were the owners of [the Calgary property].
5. “The proposed revisions were provided to [the Member] for his review and approval in March 2006.”
6. “On May 12, 2006, the City of Calgary advised the client that engineering approval for the entire structure, including foundations, was required. Despite numerous requests and inquiries from the client, [the Member] did not reply until August 2, 2006, that he could not provide the requested engineering approval.”
7. “[The complainant] made repeated inquiry to [the Member] about his review and approval of the revised structural drawings in May, June, July and August 2006. A permit from the City of Calgary was ultimately obtained in September 2006.”
8. “[The complainant] wrote a letter of complaint to APEGGA on September 20, 2006 alleging that [the Member’s] delays in responding to her requests for further information had caused unreasonable delays in obtaining construction permits from the City of Calgary.”
Conduct (Finding)
The Members have admitted that their conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct in the following respects:
[The Member], by delaying a response to repeated requests from his client, [the complainant], engaged in conduct in violation of Rule 3 of the Code of Ethics, which states, “Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, fairness and objectivity in their professional activities.”
Orders
The Investigative Committee has recommended the following orders:
1. [The Member] shall write a letter of apology for his conduct in this matter to [the complainant] within 3 months of the date of this order with a confirming copy to the Investigative Committee.
2. A summary of this case shall be published in The PEGG, without names.
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], acting on behalf of himself and [the permit holder], 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 18th day of January, 2008.