THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 17-010-RDO continued
3. This matter and its outcome will be published by APEGA as deemed appropriate and such publication will name SE Design and Consulting Inc. Signed, [ CONTACT A] Primary Contact, SE Design and Consulting Inc. HANAN SAMAN, P.ENG. Panel Chair, APEGA Investigative Committee WANDA GOULDEN, P.ENG., P.GEO. Case Manager, APEGA Discipline Committee Date: October 11, 2017
1. SE Design is to submit to APEGA’s Practice Review Board a revised Professional Practice Management Plan that outlines a suitable process to ensure the section on quality control addresses appropriate communication procedures for future business clients. Upon approval of the PPMP, the matter will be concluded. 2. If this order is not completed within 30 days after the Case Manager reviews the matter with the primary contact, the Permit Holding company (SE Design) will be suspended from practice until completion of such order.
Date: September 18, 2017
Case No.: 16-014-RDO
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENGINEERING AND GEOSCIENCE PROFESSIONS ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDUCT OF [PROFESSIONAL MEMBER A], P.ENG.
The Investigative Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) has conducted an investigation into the conduct of [Professional Member A] (the “Member”) with respect to a complaint initiated by [Complainant B] (the “Complainant”), dated August 5, 2014, (the “Complaint”). A. THE COMPLAINT The Complainant alleged that the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct and/or unskilled practice arising from an inspection conducted by the Member with respect to the installation of stone veneer to the exterior of a rental property owned by [Complainant B] in Calgary, Alberta (the “Property”). The Investigative Committee conducted an investi- gation with respect to the following allegations outlined in the Complaint: 1. Whether the Member had the permission of [Complainant B] or his tenant to enter the residential lot at [Address C] in Calgary, Alberta,
for the purposes of conducting an inspection of the stone cladding; 2. Whether the Member improperly engaged in the practice of engineering through [Company D] or [Company E] without obtaining a permit to practice; 3. Whether the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct or unskilled practice when he authored an inspection report, dated April 12, 2013, in which the Member concluded that “the stone veneer material installation had met the manufacturer’s specification.” B. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS Background 4. The Complainant retained [Contractor F] (the “Contractor”) to undertake renovations and repairs with respect to the Property. 5. The work done by the Contractor included the installation of stone cladding on the exterior of the Property.
WINTER 2017 PEG | 63
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker