THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Recommended Orders
Date: October 16, 2018
Case No.: 18-009-RDO
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENGINEERING AND GEOSCIENCE PROFESSIONS ACT, AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDUCT OF [PROFESSIONAL MEMBER A], P.ENG.
Lighting Handbook 10th Edition and Occupational Health and Safety Regulations of Canada. The Member is the responsible member for the Company. At the project’s 75 per cent completion stage, the Company’s project manager noted that the colours painted in the space were not as originally specified. Dark, light-absorbing colours were used and the Company had not been notified of these colour changes made by the Owner. The project manager explained to the Owner that dark colours will negate the effect of indirect lighting. Despite the Member providing alternative cost- effective solutions to the Owner, the Owner would not accept any additional costs. The Company did replace some of the lighting and did relocate some fixtures at their cost. The Member indicated that the project proceeded to completion and all requirements were met and occupancy provided. B. THE COMPLAINT The Investigative Committee appointed an Investigative Panel to conduct an investigation into whether the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct, unskilled practice, or both with respect to the allegations outlined in the complaint. C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The Member is the principal owner of the Company and has been a member in good standing with APEGA since 2005. 2. The Member was retained by the Complainant to provide the lighting design for the interior and exterior of the project and contract administration.
The Investigative Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) has conducted an investigation into the conduct of a permit-holding company (the “Company”) and a responsible member [Professional Member A], P.Eng., (the “Member”). The investigation has been conducted with respect to a complaint initiated by an architect (the “Complainant”), who submitted a letter of complaint dated June 20, 2016. A. BACKGROUND The Complainant was hired to complete a project in [an Alberta city]. The Complainant subcontracted out the lighting designed for both the interior and exterior of the building to the Company. At about 75 per cent completion of the project, the Complainant learned that there might be a problem with the level of lighting. The Complainant notified the Company and informed them that there might be some potential problems with the lighting and that they should pay close attention to the last portion of the project so they could monitor the lighting levels. The Complainant was assured by the Company that the lighting levels for the project would be sufficient. At 98 per cent completion, the Complainant claimed that the interior lighting was not meeting the owner’s requirements. A dispute between the owner of the project (the “Owner”), the Complainant, and the Company ensued. The Owner was able to retain a third-party engineer to assess the lighting levels. The report revealed that the illuminance levels for the main areas did not meet recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society
70 | PEG SPRING 2019
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker