DECember 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 Tim Leier, P.Eng.
Background
APEGGA’s Investigative Committee concluded an investigation into the conduct of Tim Leier, P.Eng., with respect to his testimony and a report pertaining to an electrical arcing incident in Ontario.
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, verbatim, in its entirety:
-
Mr. Leier was responsible for a written forensic report and subsequent expert testimony regarding an electrical arcing incident that occurred May 1, 2000, in the Province of Ontario.
-
In the course of providing the aforesaid report and testimony, Mr. Leier provided a forensic engineering opinion that was incomplete, and which thereby displayed a lack of knowledge or lack of skill or judgment in the practice of engineering in the following respects:
-
He did not take necessary steps to collect sufficient information prior to offering the forensic engineering opinions contained
in the report; -
The report did not adequately outline or provide an analysis of all available information;
-
His report failed to properly and accurately identify all possibilities associated with the arc flash occurrence in question;
-
The report should have more
explicitly stated the non-compliance of the equipment involved in the arc flash equipment, in line with his testimony under cross-examination.
Conduct (Findings)
The Member has freely and voluntarily admitted that his conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct in the following respect:
He undertook work that he was not competent to perform by virtue of his training and experience.
Orders
The Member has voluntarily provided a written undertaking to limit his practice, stating that he will not engage in the practice of forensic engineering. The Investigative Committee is recommending acceptance of the undertaking.
As the case manager designated by the Discipline Committee to review the matter, I agree with the recommendation and accept that undertaking. The limitation on the Member’s registration is to remain until he satisfies the Discipline Committee as to his competence in the field of forensic engineering.
During my discussion with the Member, he indicated he understands and agrees with this Order. 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.
Any complaints regarding the Member’s failure to abide by the undertaking are to be investigated by APEGGA’s Investigative Committee and brought before the Discipline Committee in accordance with Part 5 of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act, under which the Investigative Committee may suspend the Member’s registration pending a preliminary investigation or a decision of the Discipline Committee.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2009.