November 2009 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 William James Gervais, P.Eng.
Background
APEGGA’s Investigative Committee concluded an investigation into the conduct of William James Gervais, P.Eng. (the “Member”) with respect to the design of two condominium complexes.
The Member has freely and voluntarily admitted to unskilled practice and unprofessional conduct and has 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 rather than 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 Member have agreed. The agreed statement is reproduced, verbatim, in its entirety:
-
At all material times, Mr. Gervais was registered as a professional engineer by APEGGA.
-
At all material times, Mr. Gervais was employed by 976948 Alberta Ltd., operating as Western Engineering.
-
In May, 2000 the design of the Carrington Properties Ltd. Promenade condominium complex in Fort McMurray, Alberta was completed by Mr. Gervais for his then employer, Western Engineering. Stamped drawings were issued bearing the professional stamp of Mr. Gervais.
-
Following construction, which was substantially complete in May 2001, an inspection report by Alberta Permit Pro reported stress fractures in the main floor slab.
-
Following a review of the structural design by ADEM Engineering Consultants Ltd. of Calgary, it was determined that elements of the design were lacking, and remedial work was required to correct the deficiencies.
-
In June of 2000, the design of the Carrington Properties Ltd. Whitemud Oaks Grande condominium complex in Edmonton, Alberta was completed by Mr. Gervais for his then employer, Western Engineering. Stamped drawings were issued bearing the professional stamp of Mr. Gervais.
-
Following construction, which was substantially complete in February 2002, individual condominium owners noted humps and deflection in the floors and sticking doors in their units. They reported these to Carrington Properties Ltd.
-
In April 2002, Stantec Inc issued reports regarding the structural integrity of the main floor slab and the adequacy of the foundation to distribute the structure’s loads to the soil. These elements of the design were found to be lacking, and remedial work was deemed necessary to correct the deficiencies.
-
Two separate complaints were lodged with APEGGA regarding 976948 Alberta Ltd. and the professionals working therein, one in 2005 and one in 2007.
Conduct (Findings)
The Member has freely and voluntarily admitted that his conduct constitutes unskilled practice and unprofessional conduct in the following respects:
-
By issuing and approving structural design drawings for the construction of the Carrington Properties Ltd. Promenade condominium in Fort McMurray, Alberta, drawings that did not meet the Alberta Building Code, Mr. Gervais engaged in unskilled practice of the profession of engineering, in violation of Section 44(1)(d) of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act.
-
By issuing and approving structural design drawings for the Carrington Properties Ltd. Whitemud Oaks Grande condominium complex in Edmonton, Alberta, Mr. Gervais engaged in unskilled practice of the profession of engineering, in violation of Section 44(1)(d) of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act.
-
By failing to consider all of the applicable codes and standards, Gervais engaged in conduct which violated Sections 44(1)(b) of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act and Rules 1, 2, and 10 of the 1990 APEGGA Code of Ethics.
Orders
The Investigative Committee has recommended orders that it considers appropriate. 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.
-
Mr. Gervais shall pass the APEGGA Professional Practice Examination within 12 months of the date of this decision. If he does not pass the examination within that time, the Registrar (Director of Registration) shall suspend Mr. Gervais’s registration until he does pass the examination. If Mr. Gervais does not pass the examination within 24 months of the date of this decision, then the Registrar shall cancel his registration.
-
Henceforth, Mr. Gervais shall not engage in the practice of structural engineering. A notation of this restriction shall be entered in the register. The Investigative Committee shall have the power to inspect or audit Mr. Gervais’s practice to ensure compliance with this order (order 2) in any manner it sees fit. Any costs arising from such an inspection or audit shall be borne by Mr. Gervais.
-
Any complaints that Mr. Gervais has, or is, engaged in the practice of structural engineering while the restriction in order 2 is in effect shall be investigated by the Investigative Committee and brought before the Discipline Committee in accordance with the process established under Part 5 of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act.
-
The restriction in order 2 shall be removed when Mr. Gervais provides written proof to the Registrar that he has passed the following structural engineering examinations or their equivalents (as deemed by the Registrar):
• 98 – Civil – A1, A2, B1, and B2.
-
This decision, including Mr. Gervais’s name, shall be published in The PEGG.
Dated this 14th day of September, 2009.
APEGGA Discipline Committee Decision
In the matter of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act and In the matter of the conduct of [a professional engineer]
Background
APEGGA’s Investigative Committee concluded an investigation into the conduct of the Member with respect to his investigation into the cause of a roof collapse.
The Member has freely and voluntarily admitted to unprofessional conduct and has 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 rather than 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 Member have agreed. The agreed statement is reproduced in its entirety:
-
On February 21, 1999 the roof of the auditorium of [a recreation complex in Alberta] collapsed. As a result of this event, the Member’s consulting engineering company was retained by the adjusters to conduct an investigation into the cause of the failure. The principle of the firm, the Member, undertook a detailed investigation including inspection at the site, review of the construction shop drawings and analysis of the truss design.
-
In the final report, the Member noted that there were several factors involved in the failure. The report specifically identified under designed truss members and joints along with incorrectly and improperly fabricated trusses as factors. The report indicated that it was difficult to pinpoint the exact location of the cause of the fault but indicated that one specific truss which contained a large knot that negatively impacted its load carrying capability was probably where the initial structure failure occurred.
-
On February 9, 2001, the engineer who oversaw the design of the truss members and the truss joints was served notice of an action being taken against him by [an Alberta city].
-
In May of 2004, the Member identified that an error had been made in the calculations of the original report and he notified attorneys working for [the city]. In this letter, he identified that the truss design was adequate and that the probable cause for the failure rests with the truss manufacturer’s lack of quality control and deviation from the shop drawings provided to them.
-
As a result of this, in January of 2005, the engineer who oversaw the design of the truss members and the truss joints, along with a number of other parties, was discharged from the civil suit regarding the collapse.
Conduct (Findings)
The Member has freely and voluntarily admitted that his conduct constitutes unskilled practice in the following respect:
He allowed an error in his analysis calculations to be carried through into his final report to his client.
Orders
The Investigative Committee has indicated that, based on the evidence, it believes a finding of unskilled practice against the Member is warranted. However, given the seriousness that the Member has given this matter and the changes he has made to his practice to avoid similar occurrences in the future, the Investigative Committee believes any disciplinary action should be limited. The Investigative Committee has also indicated that it believes that there is educational value for the Association’s members by publishing this case, but given the Member’s sincerity and cooperation in responding to the investigation, along with the steps he has already taken in his practice to reduce the risk of a future occurrence, publication of the Member’s name is unnecessary.
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.
-
The Member is to be issued a letter of caution. Copies of the letter are to be placed in the Member’s registration file and in the permit file of the Member’s consulting engineering company.
-
This Order is to be published, without names, in The PEGG.
Dated this 21st day of September, 2009.