THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 18-004 RDO continued
22. On April 19, 2017, the Member and his colleague sent a report outlining the findings of their Review (the “Report”) to the Owner and the Architect. However, neither the Member nor his colleague sent the Report or the Review letter to the Complainant. 23. On April 20, 2017, the Complainant received the Report from the Owner. On the same day, the Complainant responded to the Report via email to the Owner, and the Owner forwarded the Complainant’s response to the Member’s colleague. One issue raised by the Complainant was that the Review was performed on the outdated set of drawings. Later that same day, the Member’s colleague received the updated set of drawings from the Architect. 24. The Member compared the two sets of drawings and determined there was no difference except for two drawings. The Member’s opinion was not changed by the differences. 25. The Owner released the Complainant from the Projects within six days of the Report having been sent to the Owner. The Owner hired the Company to replace the Complainant as the structural engineering contractor on the Projects. D. CONDUCT 26. The Member freely and voluntarily admits that: a. He critiqued the design work of the Complainant without assuring the Complainant was aware that he would be doing so. b. He provided his critique findings for the first time in front of the Complainant’s client, thus preventing the Complainant the opportunity to defend his designs. c. His conduct sufficiently questioned the
13. On April 17, 2017, at 6:30 p.m., the Architect informed the Complainant of the April 18 Meeting at the Owner’s office. The Architect had told the Complainant that it would just be the Complainant, the Architect, and the Owner at that meeting. 14. The Member knew the Complainant was going to be at the April 18 meeting, but he was not aware of the Architect’s inaccurate communications with the Complainant. 15. The Complainant, the Owner, the Member, his colleague, and the Architect attended the April 18 meeting. 16. At the beginning of the April 18 meeting, the Member became aware that the Complainant was surprised at his attendance in the April 18 meeting, and that this was the first time the Complainant was aware that the Member was specifically reviewing the Complainant’s designs. 17. The Member indicated that the Email had been sent to the Complainant and provided proof of having sent it by accessing his email account on his phone. The Complainant reviewed it and pointed out that the Email had been sent to the incorrect email address and an email account that does not exist. 18. The Member asked the Complainant to enter his correct address, which the Complainant did, and the Email was forwarded to the correct address at that time. 19. The Member and his colleague asked the Complainant if he would continue with the meeting. The Complainant agreed to proceed with the meeting, but did not expect his work would be critiqued during the April 18 meeting. 20. During the April 18 meeting, the Member and his colleague verbally discussed their concerns with the Complainant’s designs. 21. Later during the April 18 Meeting, the Complainant requested that a formal review letter be sent to him instead of proceeding further, and the Member indicated that such a letter (the “Review letter”) could be done for the end of the following day.
technical competence of the Complainant in front of the Complainant’s client, which very likely influenced the client to release the Complainant from the Projects.
27. The Member acknowledges that his conduct is a breach of Section 44(1)(b) of the Act and therefore constitutes unprofessional conduct as defined in the Act.
54 | PEG WINTER 2018
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker