THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Date: October 16, 2017
Case No.: 17-012-RDO
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENGINEERING AND GEOSCIENCE PROFESSIONS ACT, AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDUCT OF STEPHEN PETROVICH, P.ENG.
The Investigative Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) has conducted an investigation into the conduct of Stephen Petrovich, P.Eng. (the “Member”), with respect to a complaint initiated by [Compainant A] (the “Complainant”), dated May 30, 2016. 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 excava- tion that bordered the property line and noted the soils of the excavation site had significantly settled and ap- peared similar to a sinkhole. The neighbour also noted cracks in their foundation wall and attached sunroom. The neighbour sought an engineering opinion to as- sist with her concerns and retained Stephen Petrovich, P.Eng., (the Member) from [Company A]. The Complainant alleged that the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct and/or unskilled practice arising from the Member’s inspections and subsequent reports. The reports directly attributed the neighbour’s foundation concerns to the Complainant’s excavation. 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 reports led to a costly civil suit that was launched by the neighbour against the Complainant that was ultimately unsuccessful. 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 April 29, 2014, and a
follow-up inspection report dated September 16, 2015, in which 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 testimony of the neighbour. 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. Inappropriately referenced the settled soils of the excavated area as a “sink hole” when it was an area that incurred normal settlement as a result of uncompacted fill that was put back into the excavated hole. f. Provided a non-standard recommendation for residential properties to remove native fill from the excavation and replace it with engineered gravel. 2. That the Member’s permit holding company, [Company A], was not registered with APEGA at the time his first report was issued and as such was not in compliance with APEGA’s permit requirements.
B. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS Background
3. In the spring of 2014 the Member was retained by [Neighbour B], the Complainant’s neighbour (the
56 | PEG WINTER 2017
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker