THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 16-014-RDO continued
could potentially create confusion for others who reviewed the letters after they were authored.
28. The Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the finding of the Provincial Court of Alberta that the work performed by the Contractor, including the instal- lation of the stone veneer, was satisfactory. The Investigative Committee did not refer that issue to a hearing. 29. The matters in issue relate solely to whether the wording of the First Letter and the Second Letter was appropriate in light of the scope of the Member’s retainer and the activities he performed. 30. At the time the First Letter was authored, the City of Calgary required an inspection to be performed by an appropriate professional during construction, so that the professional could opine on matters relating to moisture control. 31. The Member admits that the First Letter did not clearly confirm the scope of his retainer or the timing of his field review. In particular, while the First Letter expressly referred to and confirmed “the installation procedure,” it did not clarify that: • The purpose of the field review was limited to reviewing the Contractor’s installation procedure for the exterior wall cladding system for cladding support, movement control and thermal expansion and moisture control; or • The field review was conducted while installation of the stone veneer was still in progress. 32. Similarly, the Member admits that the Second Letter did not specifically confirm the scope of his retainer, the purpose for conducting a second field review, or that the installation of the stone veneer had been completed at the time of the second field review. 33. Although the Contractor understood the scope of the Member’s retainer and the timing of both field reviews, the Member acknowledges that both the First and the Second Letter ought better to have included clarification with respect to the purpose and scope of his retainer, and the timing of the field reviews that were undertaken on both occasions. The Member acknowledges that the lack of clarity, although unintentional,
C. CONDUCT 34. The Member freely and voluntarily admits that: a. He should not have issued correspondence under the name [Company E] or [Company D] related to the practice of engineering, and that he ought to have applied for a practice permit if he intended to do so. b. The letter dated April 12, 2013, did not adequately clarify the scope of the retainer or the purpose for the field review, and did not adequately clarify that the installation of the stone veneer was still in progress at the time the field review was conducted. c. The letter dated September 24, 2013, did not adequately clarify the scope of the retainer or the purpose of the field review, and did not clarify that the installation of the stone veneer was complete at the time of the field review. d. The Member acknowledges that the conduct described above constitutes unprofessional conduct as defined in the Act: 44(1) Any conduct of a professional member, licensee, permit holder, certificate holder or member-in-training that in the opinion of the Discipline Committee or the Appeal Board: a) Is detrimental to the best interests of the public; b) Contravenes a code of ethics of the profession as established under the regulations; c) Harms or tends to harm the standing of the profession generally; d) Displays a lack of knowledge of or lack of skill or judgment in the practice of the profession; e) Displays a lack of knowledge of or lack of skills or judgment in the carrying out any duty or obligation undertaken in the practice of the profession, whether or not that conduct is disgraceful or dishonourable, constitutes either unskilled practice of the profession, or unprofessional conduct, whichever the Discipline Committee or the Appeal Board finds.
66 | PEG WINTER 2017
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker