REGULATORY
The Discipline File
Investigative Capacity Grows Complaints against Members have increased on pace with our growth in professional membership, and APEGA has added staff horsepower to better meet the demand. Since we hired our first professional investigator in September 2013, three others have joined the team, the most recent having started in September. Three of the four are former police officers, and one was an investigator for new home warranty claims. Their expertise is used to help APEGA’s Investigative Committee lead more thorough investigations and write more consistent, detailed reports on findings, which is speeding up processing times. The Investigative Committee is made up of Professional Members who review evidence for each case and make the ultimate decision about whether a complaint advances to the APEGA discipline process. While the number of complaints remains small relative to the size of the membership, the number has been increasing. In 2013, the number of complaints increased 42 per cent to 61. There was another increase in 2014, when there were 66 complaints in total. By the end of August this year, there were already 50 complaints filed for the year. It’s too early to show significant improvement in results, because many of the changes in the department have just begun. Professional investigators are speeding up the processing of new files. And they’re working to close some older, more complex files that date back several years. While processing times will always vary depending on the complexity of each case, the team’s target is to process all new complaints, including investigative results, within an average time of 180 days. Also of note: the Investigative Committee is now sharing more detailed decision re- ports with complainants and Members under investigation, outlining in detail the reasons for its recommendations. The hope is that this will improve the parties’ understanding of the factors that were considered, and ultimately reduce the number of appeals that are filed.
In the second complaint, the company was under contract with a developer for civil engineering design services in the construction of a new hotel and restaurant in the same municipality. The company forwarded a document entitled Development Permit to the developer, but it wasn’t a valid permit and was apparently a draft. The municipality by then had notified the developer that no development permit had been applied for or granted. In both cases, the municipality was the complainant. The RDO ordered that details of the matter be published in The PEG without names. Visit apega.ca to read the full RDO. • Don Perera, P.Eng., has entered into a voluntary undertaking with APEGA to request the cancellation of his registration as a Professional Member. At the time he entered into his voluntary undertaking, Mr. Perera was the subject of two discipline charges under the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act relating to allegations that Mr. Perera had engaged in unprofessional conduct arising from his ownership of a building project. The charges alleged that Mr. Perera failed to engage, seek, or follow geotechnical engineering advice related to that building project. By his undertaking, while not admitting to the charges in question, Mr. Perera has agreed to request the cancellation of his registration as a Professional Member of APEGA; that he will not apply for registration or reinstatement with APEGA; and that he will not hold himself out as a Member of APEGA in any manner. In the event that Mr. Perera does not comply with the terms of his undertaking, APEGA has reserved the right to proceed with the prosecution of the two charges through referral to a disciplinary hearing. Visit apega.ca to read the voluntary undertaking.
• APEGA has reprimanded a Responsible Member and his employer, a Permit Holding company, for giving unverified and inaccurate advice to clients about meeting regulatory requirements. The company’s “poor document management,” combined with the Professional Engineer’s “inadequate supervision of subordinates and lack of adherence” to a document policy, contributed to the incidents of unprofessional conduct, says an APEGA Recommended Discipline Order (RDO). APEGA found that the unverified advice to two different clients “tends to harm the standing of the profession generally.” The advice and related incidents violated Rule of Conduct No. 5 of the APEGA Code of Ethics : “Professional engineers and geoscientists shall uphold and enhance the honour, dignity and reputation of their professions and thus the ability of the professions to serve the public interest.” An RDO includes facts, findings, and penalties agreed to by the investigated party or parties. It has the same force and effect as a decision of an APEGA Discipline Hearing, but it doesn’t require the time and expense of holding one. In one complaint, the client was an Alberta municipality. The company was under contract to perform design and construction management services for the rehabilitation of a storm sewer outfall. Before construction began, the company was required to notify Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) about the project and obtain regulatory approvals. The company told the client that all that AESRD required was notification and that the company had provided that. Construction began. But AESRD, it turned out, had no record of notification. The company itself had no record of a Water Act application or approval, or a Public Lands Temporary Authorization, both of which were also required before construction began.
70 | PEG FALL 2015
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker