THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 16-001-FH continued
have been taken to verify the work and to document that verification. The fine of $250 was also appropriate to recognize that such conduct was unacceptable but fell within the low end of the scale of potential unpro- fessional conduct. The Hearing Panel noted that if there had been additional instances of such conduct proven, a more serious fine may have been required. The Hearing Panel agreed that publication was ap- propriate to provide the public and the profession with information concerning what has occurred and to make clear to the profession the importance of ensuring that clients are not advised to pay for work that has not been verified by the Professional Member. The Hearing Panel accepted the joint submission of the parties to publish the decision without the name of the Member. The Hearing Panel recognized that joint submissions on sanctions by the parties must be given significant weight by a hearing panel and should only be rejected if they are clearly unreasonable or unfit to deal with the findings on unprofessional conduct made by the hearing panel. In this case, in view of the Member’s very long career, the Member’s cooperation and acknowledgment of the conduct, and the Member’s personal circum- stances, the Hearing Panel agreed that there was no need to mention the Member by name in the publication. The Hearing Panel also accepted the proposal that the Member, as Chief Operating Officer of the Mem- ber’s permitted corporation, submit a revised Profes- sional Practice Management Plan. It was clear from the evidence that more steps could have been taken to document the scope of work of the Project and the management and inspection of the Project. The revised Professional Practice Management Plan to be reviewed by the Practice Review Board will help to ensure that the errors that lead to this hearing are not repeated.
d. this admitted conduct constituted unprofessional conduct in the practice of engineering. The Hearing Panel accepted the Member’s admission of unprofessional conduct. In the opinion of the Hearing Panel, the admitted conduct was serious enough to constitute unprofessional conduct. A client must be able to rely on recommendations made by a Professional Member, and it is unprofessional to recommend payment for work that the Professional Member has not verified. The Hearing Panel also noted that in this case the delay in the Member providing all relevant documents on a timely basis meant that the Member did not make clear to the Investigative Committee the scope of the work undertaken for the Project. As a result, it was only when the Member provided the additional information that the Investigative Committee was able to understand the more limited scope of the work which resulted in the amended charge. The Hearing Panel emphasized that it is essential that a Member under investigation cooperate with the investigation by providing all relevant documents on a timely basis. The Hearing Panel also accepted the Joint Submis- sion on Sanctions made by the parties and made the following orders: a. the Member was issued a letter of reprimand; b. the Member was fined $250 payable within 60 days of receipt of the written decision of the Hearing Panel; c. the decision was to be published to the membership and made available to the public without the name of the Member; and d. the Member, as Chief Operating Officer of his permitted corporation, was required to submit a revised Professional Practice Management Plan to the Director of Enforcement and Permits of APEGA within 60 days of receipt of the written decision of the Hearing Panel, and the Director will forward this revised Professional Practice Management Plan to the Practice Review Board for follow-up in accordance with their process. The Hearing Panel determined that a reprimand was appropriate to make clear that greater care should
Signed, ROBERT SWIFT, P.ENG. Panel Chair, APEGA Discipline Committee PAUL RUFFELL, P.ENG. Panel Member, APEGA Discipline Committee DIANA PURDY, P.GEOL . Panel Member, APEGA Discipline Committee Date: June 26, 2017
70 | PEG WINTER 2017
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker