THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Date: June 6, 2018
Case No.: 18-005 RDO
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENGINEERING AND GEOSCIENCE PROFESSIONS ACT, AND IN THE MATTER OF [PROFESSIONAL MEMBER A], P.ENG.
The Investigative Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (“APEGA”) has conducted an investigation into the conduct of [Professional Member A], P.Eng., (the “Member”), of [Company B] (the “Company”). The investigation was conducted with respect to a complaint initiated by [Complainant C], P.Eng., (the “Complainant”), who submitted a letter of complaint dated April 18, 2017. The complaint involved two members under investigation. The other member under investigation was the Member’s colleague. A. BACKGROUND The Complainant filed a complaint against the Member alleging that the Member had critiqued the work of the Complainant and shared the critique findings without prior notice to and review with the Complainant. B. THE COMPLAINT [Person D] of [Company E], (the “Owner”) hired the Complainant as the structural engineer for his development projects (the “Projects”). The Owner hired the Company to conduct a review of the structural designs that were developed by the Complainant. The Complainant did not receive notification from the Member before the Member commenced his review. The Owner hosted a meeting at his office that included the Complainant, the Member, and other people associated with the Projects. The Complainant was unaware the Member was going to participate in the meeting until he and his colleague arrived. At the meeting, the Member proceeded to share his critique findings of the Complainant’s design work for the first time in front of the Owner and others. The Investigative Committee conducted an investigation to determine if the actions of the Member contravened Section 44(1) of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act (the “Act”). Specifically, the
Investigative Panel considered whether the Member acted unprofessionally toward the Complainant when he critiqued the Complainant’s designs. C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The Member was a professional member of APEGA. 2. During the second week of April 2017, the Owner contacted the Company to perform a review of the Complainant’s design work (the “Review”). 3. The Review was to be conducted by the Member and his colleague. The Member’s role was to technically review the Complainant’s design work and report to his colleague the items he found to be wrong or suspicious. 4. The Member’s colleague drafted a letter (the “Notification Letter”) dated April 17, 2017, to the Complainant regarding the Company’s forthcoming Review of both of the Projects. The Notification Letter advised the Complainant that the Company had been retained to review the Owner’s Projects. 5. The Review was to rely on a set of drawings provided by [Architect F] (the “Architect”). 6. On April 17, 2017, the Complainant was notified by the Owner that the Complainant would be contacted by another engineer who would be reviewing the Complainant’s design work at the Owner’s request. On the same day, the Architect provided the Member’s colleague with a copy of the Owner’s notice to the Complainant of the forthcoming Review. 7. On April 17, 2017, at 10:33 a.m., the Member’s colleague’s secretary sent the Notification Letter by email (the “Email”) from the colleague’s email account. The Email indicated that the Company’s Review would take a few days and that they wanted to sit down with the Complainant to review their findings with him prior to issuing their final conclusion.
50 | PEG WINTER 2018
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker