THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 17-013-RDO continued
15. The Complaint was referred to the Investigative Committee, and a Panel was appointed to investigate the Complaint. Panel Findings 16. The Panel conducted an investigation, and issued its report on May 17, 2017. The Panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence to refer the following two matters to hearing: a. The Member issued two reports as a professional engineer, providing professional opinions that were to be relied upon by the public; however, these reports were not based on sound engineering principles, specifically: i. There were no soils tests conducted. ii. The erroneous reference to the soils being silty sand. iii. No groundwater tests were completed. iv. A lack of reference to the zone of influence and the probability of the excavation affecting the neighbour’s home. v. Information known to the Member only by the word of his Client was presented in the report as factual information, apparently confirmed by the Member. C. CONDUCT 17. The Member freely and voluntarily admits that: a. The report dated June 8, 2015, did not adequately contain engineering work to justify and support its conclusions and recommendations. b. The report completed on August 24, 2015, did not adequately contain engineering work to justify and support its conclusions and recommendations. c. The Member acknowledges that the conduct described above constitutes unprofessional conduct as defined in the Act: 44 (1) 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;
10. Realizing he was now being sued, the Complainant retained [Company C] a second time on December 14, 2015, this time to conduct a geotechnical investigation of the soils located in his front yard. a. A test hole was drilled to 7.6 metres and soil samples were obtained. b. One soil sample taken at a depth of 2.3 metres was taken for lab testing. c. Silty clay was encountered below the topsoil and extended to 3.7 metres below the ground surface. d. [Company C] also installed a standpipe to monitor the groundwater level at the site. The level was found to be dry to a depth of 5.2 metres. 11. [Company C]’s investigation concluded: a. The settlement of the excavation was not a sinkhole and should not cause any adverse effects to the footings of the Plaintiff’s (Client’s) house. b. Based on the soils found, there would be no loss of soils by groundwater movement in the upper 3.4 metres of the soil and this would not cause the settlement of the Plaintiff’s (Client’s) house. c. The excavation was not deep enough or close enough to the Client’s home to be in the zone of influence for bearing pressure under the foundations of the Client’s home. 12. On December 9, 2015, the Complainant also retained [Company D] who reviewed the settlement that had occurred in the front yard of the Complainant’s home. They concluded: a. The settlement that has occurred at the location of the sewer repair or sinkhole has had no effect on the settlement of the neighbour’s porch nor on the cracks observed in their foundation walls. 13. On May 11, 2016, a written decision regarding the Civil Claim was signed by the Provincial judge, ruling in favour of the Complainant and awarding costs. 14. On May 30, 2016, the Complainant submitted the Complaint to APEGA.
52 | PEG WINTER 2017
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker