THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Recommended Orders
Date: February 15, 2017
Case No.: 17-002-RDO
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENGINEERING AND GEOSCIENCE PROFESSIONS ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDUCT OF [PROFESSIONAL MEMBER A], P.ENG., AND [PERMIT HOLDER B]
misled the Panel by misinforming the Panel on [Company D’s] reading and interpretation of the pile driving records. B. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. [Professional Member A], P.Eng., was a professional Member of APEGA and was thus bound by the APEGA Code of Ethics at all relevant times. 2. [Permit Holder B] held a valid Permit to Practice and was bound by the Act and the Code at all relevant times. 3. The Member was engaged by [Company E] to prepare an Engineering Report for the piling foundation of a ready-to-move home to be placed on the lot of [Complainant C] near [Rural Community F], Alberta. 4. The pilings were installed on the [Complainant C] property by [Company D] on November 6, 2014. At the time the Member was retained by [Company E], the pilings were already installed. 5. The November 6, 2014, pile report prepared by [Company D] indicated that 9 of 31 installed piles were “soft.” At the request of [Complainant C], [Company E] instructed [Company D] to return to the site on December 2, 2014, and add more length to the “soft” piles. 6. The Member prepared and authenticated a drawing on December 6, 2014, indicating his approval of the pile installation.
The Investigative Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) investigated the conduct of [Professional Member A], P.Eng., and his company [Permit Holder B] with respect to a letter of complaint received from [Complainant C] on January 9, 2015, alleging unskilled practice in the engineering approval of pilings for a ready-to-move home. A. COMPLAINTS 1. The Member has engaged in unprofessional conduct that was detrimental to the best interests of the public contrary to Section 44(1) (a) (b) of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act (“Act”) and Rule of Conduct #1 of the A PEGA Code of Ethics (“Code”). The Member failed to investigate soil reports and neglected to visit the site for first- hand information on soil conditions and did not hold paramount the best interests of the public. 2. The Member has engaged in unskilled practice that displayed a lack of judgment in the work undertaken contrary to Section 44(1) of the Act and Rule of Conduct #2 of the Code. The Member misinterpreted the pile-driving record and improperly approved the adequacy of the piles with no engineering basis. 3. The Member has engaged in unprofessional conduct that was detrimental to the best interests of the public contrary to Section 44(1) (b) of the Act and Rule of Conduct #3 of the Code. The Member
54 | PEG FALL 2017
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog