THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 16-014-RDO continued
24. The Member contacted APEGA on several occasions to inquire as to whether if he is carrying on business as a sole proprietor, he must obtain a Permit to Practice. The Member was advised on each occasion that it was not necessary for him to obtain a practice permit. 25. Although a Member who provides engineering services through a sole proprietorship is not obliged or eligible to obtain a practice permit, if a Member is providing engineering services through a corporate entity, it is necessary to obtain a permit to practice. At the time he contacted APEGA, the Member did not advise APEGA that he was a director and shareholder in a corporate entity, or that he was providing some services and issuing invoices for non-engineering services through the corporate entity. 26. The Member states that he incorporated the Corporation for the purpose of reporting income practice of engineering. The Member also states that he reported income to the Canada Revenue Agency for engineering services he provided on his personal tax return, and that the income he earned for project management, estimating services, and construction was reported on the income tax returns for the Corporation. 27. Although the Member states that he did not intend to practise engineering through the Corporation and was not aware that his use of his tradename could cause others to believe he was in contravention of s. 2(1) of the Act, the Member acknowledges that some of the activities that he engaged in, including the field review resulting in the letter dated April 13, 2013, constitute the “practice of engineering.” The Member admits that the suffix “Inc.” was and is inappropriate for a sole proprietorship, and was and is liable to cause confusion in this regard. Facts Relating to Allegation #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 installa- tion had met the manufacturer’s specification.” relating to project management and other activities that do not specifically involve the
Provincial Court of Alberta. Upon conclusion of the trial, the Civil Claim against the Contractor was dismissed. 17. The Complainant subsequently appealed the dismissal of his claim against the Contractor. The appeal was heard in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta on April 22, 2016. The Justice in Chambers upheld the trial judge’s dismissal of the Civil Claim, including the trial judge’s finding that the work performed by the Contractor was satisfactory. Facts Relating to Allegation #2 — Whether the Member improperly engaged in the practice of engineering through [Company D] or [Company E] without obtaining a permit to practice 18. The Member incorporated a company called [Company D] in September of 2003. [Professional Member A] was the sole shareholder of [Company D], which was struck from the corporate register in March of 2013. 19. The Member also incorporated a company called [Company E], in 1998. [Professional Member A] is the sole Director and Shareholder of [Company E] (the “Corporation”), which is an active corporation. 20. [Company D] is a trade name of [Company E]. 21. Neither [Company D] nor the Corporation has ever applied for or obtained a practice permit from APEGA. 22. 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.” 23. The Corporation has been engaged to provide design/build and engineering services to clients on a number of occasions since 1998, including the submission of Forms A and C to the City of Calgary.
WINTER 2017 PEG | 65
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker