THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 17-012-RDO continued
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. No reference to the type of soil that was present at the site. iii. No groundwater tests were completed. iv. No confirmation of the exact location of the excavation was determined. v. A lack of reference to the zone of influence and the probability of the excavation to affect the Neighbour’s home. vi. 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. b. The Member was practising engineering through [Company A] without having a valid Permit to Practice. i. A review of [Company A]’s Permit to Practice revealed that [Company A] joined APEGA as a valid Permit Holder on September 1, 2014. This was after the Member’s report was printed on [Company A] letterhead (dated April 29, 2014). ii. A Member providing engineering services through a corporate entity is required to obtain a permit to practice. iii. Section 2(1) of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act (the “Act”) states that: “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no individual, corporation, partnership or other entity, except a professional engineer, a licensee so authorized in the licensee’s license, a permit holder so authorized in its permit or a certificate holder so authorized in the certificate holder’s certificate, shall engage in the practice of engineering.” C. CONDUCT 20. The Member freely and voluntarily admits that:
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 depth of 5.2 metres. 14. [Company C]’s investigation concluded: a. The settlement of the excavation was, “not a ‘sink hole’ 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 would not cause the settlement of the Plaintiff’s (Client’s) house.” c. Further, the excavation was not deep enough and was too far away from the Client’s home to be in the zone of influence. 15. 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: “…the settlement that has occurred at the location of the sewer repair or ‘sinkhole’ has had no effect on the settlement of the porch… nor on the cracks in the foundation walls…” 16. On May 11, 2016, the written decision regarding the Civil Claim was signed by the provincial judge, ruling in favour of the Complainant and awarding costs. 17. On May 30, 2016, the Complainant submitted the Complaint to APEGA. 18. The Complaint was referred to the Investigative Committee, and a Panel was appointed to investigate the Complaint. Panel Findings 19. 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
a. The report dated April 29, 2014, did not adequately contain engineering work to justify and support its conclusions and recommendations.
58 | PEG WINTER 2017
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker