THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Recommended Orders
Date: November 16, 2017
Case No.: 17-013-RDO
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENGINEERING AND GEOSCIENCE PROFESSIONS ACT, AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDUCT OF MICHAEL STAPLE, P.ENG.
The Investigative Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) has conducted an investigation into the conduct of Michael Staple, P.Eng. (the “Member”) with respect to a complaint initiated by [Complainant A] (the “Complainant”) dated May 30, 2016 (the “Complaint”). A. THE COMPLAINT This complaint is regarding two adjacent homes located in southwest Calgary, Alberta. An excavation to repair a damaged sewer line was conducted at the front of the Complainant’s home in the fall of 2013, which allegedly caused damage to the neighbour’s foundation. The Complainant’s neighbour witnessed the excavation that bordered the property line and noted the soils of the excavation site had significantly settled and appeared similar to a sinkhole. The neighbour also noted cracks in their foundation wall and attached sunroom. The neighbour sought engineering opinions to assist with her concerns and retained Michael Staple, P.Eng. (the Member), from [Company B]. The Complainant alleged that the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct and/or unskilled practice arising from the Member’s inspections and subsequent reports. The Member’s reports directly attributed the neighbour’s foundation concerns to the Complainant’s excavation and lack of surface water management. The Complainant further alleges that the reports were based on visual inspections only and did not entail any engineering work to substantiate the findings. The findings documented in the Report led to a costly civil suit that was launched by the neighbour against the Complainant that was ultimately unsuc- cessful.
The Investigative Committee conducted an investi- gation with respect to the following allegations outlined in the Complaint: 1. Whether the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct or unskilled practice when he authored an inspection report, dated June 8, 2015, and a subsequent report dated August 24, 2015. The neighbour retained the Member a second time to review a report that was completed by [Company C], dated June 12, 2015. [Company C] was retained by the Complainant. The Panel investigated whether the Member: a. Conducted an inspection and made determinations and recommendations regarding cracks in a concrete foundation wall based only on a visual inspection and the testimony of his client. b. Based on the visual inspection, determined the neighbour’s foundation problems were caused by the Complainant’s excavation to repair the sewer line. c. Formed conclusions that did not accurately consider the soil conditions and the zone of influence. d. Did not consider and/or provide other possible reasons or causes as to why the neighbour’s foundation or sunroom incurred cracks or settlement. e. Erroneously referred to the soils of the area as consisting of silty sand overlying gravel. f. Provided recommendations for repair to the homeowner that were based on unconfirmed site and soil conditions.
50 | PEG WINTER 2017
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker