THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 17-002-RDO continued
C. CONDUCT The Member freely and voluntarily admits that he engaged in unprofessional conduct and unskilled practice that contravened Section 44(1)(b) of the Act and Rules of Conduct #1, #2, and #3. D. SECTION 44(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CODE OF ETHICS 1. Section 44(1) of the Act states: Any conduct of a professional member, licensee, permit holder, certificate holder or member-in-training that in the opinion of the Discipline Committee or the Appeal Board (a) is detrimental to the best interests of the public; (b) contravenes a code of ethics of the profession as established under the regulations; (c) harms or tends to harm the standing of the profes- sion generally; (d) displays a lack of knowledge of or lack of skill or judgment in the practice of the profession, or; (e) displays a lack of knowledge of or lack of skill or judgment in the carrying out of any duty or obligation undertaken in the practice of the profession, whether or not that conduct is disgraceful or dishonourable, constitutes either unskilled practice of the profession or unprofessional conduct, whichever the Discipline Committee or the Appeal Board finds. 2. Applicable Rules of the APEGA Code of Ethics state: 1 Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall, in their areas of practice, hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public and have regard for the environment. 2 Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall undertake only work that they are competent to perform by virtue of their training and experience. 3 Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, fairness and objectivity in their professional activities.
7. The Member did not attend the site. His approval of the pile installation relied on the pile-driving records and a verbal confirmation from [Company E] that the piles were installed satisfactorily. 8. On December 16, 2014, [Inspector G] with [Company H] attended the site. He noted the connections on the lengthened piles were not welded. He discussed this with [Professional Member A], who advised him that although the connections should have been welded, they were pressed tightly together and would not come apart. [Inspector G] accepted [Professional Member A’s] authenticated drawing and verbal advice, and subsequently advised the homeowner the piles met the requirements of the Alberta Building Code. 9. [Complainant C] disagreed with the Member’s assessment of the piles and lodged a complaint with APEGA. 10. On November 6, 2015, the Member was interviewed by the Panel. The Panel determined that the Member’s interpretation of the pile-driving record was flawed and that the document was approved with no engineering basis. 11. On November 15, 2015, the Member advised the panel that he was provided with information that his interpretation of the pile-driving record was in fact correct. 12. On November 20, 2015, [Company D] confirmed for the Panel that the Member’s interpretation of the pile-driving record was incorrect. 13. The Member advised the Panel of his intention to retire from the practice of engineering effective October 1, 2017. 14. The Member advised the Panel that he will not practice in pile design and installation leading up to the anticipated October 1, 2017, retirement date. 15. The Member cooperated with the APEGA investigation and accepted full responsibility for the situation.
FALL 2017 PEG | 55
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog