THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 16-014-RDO continued
10. On August 15, 2013, the Complainant filed a Statement of Claim against the Contractor alleging breach of contract for deficient renovation work on the Property (the “Civil Claim”). The Civil Claim alleged defects with respect to a number of aspects of the work performed by the Contractor, including installation of the stone veneer. 11. In or about September of 2013, [Contractor F] requested that the Member return to the Property to advise whether there was any indication of a problem with the stone veneer work. The Member returned and conducted a further inspection at [Contractor F’s] request, and issued and authenticated a second letter dated September 24, 2013 (the “Second Letter”). 12. On August 5, 2014, the Complainant submitted the Complaint to APEGA. 13. The Complaint was referred to the Investigative Committee, and a Panel was appointed to investigate the Complaint. 14. The Panel conducted an investigation, and issued its report on December 16, 2015. The Panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence to refer the following two issues to hearing: a. Whether the Member issued a letter, dated April 12, 2013, that relayed information that was apt to be misinterpreted since it stated the stonework was installed according to directions when the stonework had not been completely installed at that time; and b. Whether the Member was practising engineering through [Company E] without having a valid permit to practice. 15. The Panel determined that there was insufficient evidence to refer the following matters also raised in the Complaint to a hearing: a. Whether the Member inappropriately or incorrectly issued a report indicating that the stone veneer material installation had met the manufacturer’s specification; and b. Whether the Member attended at the Property for the purpose of conducting a field review without the Complainant’s consent. 16. On or about February 25 and March 2, 2015, a trial was held with respect to the Civil Claim in the
6. The Contractor retained the Member to conduct an inspection of the Contractor’s installation procedure for the stone cladding, in accordance with the City of Calgary’s requirements. 7. The City of Calgary did not require that a Form A be completed. However, at the relevant time, the City of Calgary required that a field review be conducted during construction to inspect the exterior wall cladding system to ensure that the procedure conformed with the cladding manufacturer’s installation procedure for (a) cladding support, movement control and thermal expansion and (b) moisture management including protecting from precipitation and water ingress control. 8. The Member attended at the Property with [Contractor F] on or about April 12, 2013, to conduct a field review. At the time he attended the Property, installation of the stone veneer was underway but was not finished. The initial substrate work was completed, and a few rows of veneer had been installed. 9. Subsequent to his attendance at the Property, the Member issued and authenticated a letter (the “First Letter”) on behalf of [Company D], dated April 12, 2013, addressed to the Contractor. The First Letter stated the following: “[Company D] has completed a site review of the stone cladding veneer inspection and confirm that this stone veneer material installation had met the manufacturer’s specification. “[Company D] confirmed that the installation procedure as follow [sic]: 1. Remove existing wall siding. 2. Install base trim at the bottom of the stone veneer wall. 3. Install 3/4“exterior grade sheathing on top of the existing exterior wall. 4. Install building paper. 5. Install steel wire mesh. 6. Install stone veneer with mortar. 7. Install top flashing to cover the top of the veneer wall.”
64 | PEG WINTER 2017
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker