THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 18-004 RDO continued
4. The Member only provided the Draft Notification Letters to the Architect and the Owner for their review at that time. 5. On April 16, 2017, at 8:27 a.m., the Architect notified the Member that the drawings were available to be picked up. 6. On April 17, 2017, at 12:26 a.m., 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. 7. On April 17, 2017, at 7:30 a.m., the Architect provided the Member with a copy of the Owner’s notice to the Complainant of the forthcoming Review as well as the Complainant’s contact information. 8. The Draft Notification Letters were consolidated by the Member into a single notification letter dated April 17, 2017, that advised of the Review of the Projects (the “Revised Notification Letter”). 9. On April 17, 2017, at 10:33 a.m., the Member’s sec- retary sent the Revised Notification Letter by email (the “Email”) from the Member’s email account to inform the Complainant that the Company was going to review the Complainant’s design work. 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. 10. The Email was sent to an email address that does not exist. The Member said he did not notice any email bounce-back notification indicating a failed delivery of the Email. 11. Without having received any indication that the Email had not been successfully delivered to the Complainant as intended, the Member made no further effort to contact the Complainant. 12. Before noon on April 17, 2017, the Member picked up the drawings from the print shop. Unbeknownst to the Member, the drawings provided by the Architect were not the most current set of drawings for the Projects. The Complainant had released an updated set of drawings about four months after releasing the original set.
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 in- cluded the Complainant, the Member and other people associated with the Projects. The Complainant was un- aware the Member was going to participate in the meet- ing 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 investi- gation to determine if the actions of the Member contra- vened Section 44(1) of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act (the “Act”). Specifically, the Investigative Panel considered whether the Member acted unprofes- sionally 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. After being asked by the Owner to perform this Review, the Member drafted two letters dated April 13, 2017, to the Complainant regarding the Company’s forthcoming Review of each of the Projects (the “Draft Notification Letters”). The Draft Notification Letters advised the Complainant that the Company had been retained to review the Owner’s Projects and invited the Complainant to contact the Member with any questions.
WINTER 2018 PEG | 53
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker