THE DISCIPLINE FILE
The Panel ordered the Permit Holder to: 1. Pay a fine in the amount of $1,000 within 1 month of the decision; 2. Receive formal reprimand for its conduct, which the Discipline Committee’s written decision is to serve as; and 3. Pay hearing costs in the amount of $4,000 within 2 months of the decision. The Hearing Panel also acknowledged the Permit Holder’s undertaking to communicate to its staff what had happened in this case and how important it is to follow the company’s PPMP in all circumstances. In the opinion of the Panel, the above imposed orders and the undertaking of the Permit Holder will protect the public and the integrity of the profession. The Panel appreciated the cooperation and professional manner of the parties. The findings were of a serious nature that needed to be dealt with appropriately. Without the Member and Permit Holders’ cooperation and acknowledgement of error, the Hearing Panel would have imposed more severe sanctions for the unprofessional conduct and unskilled practice that occurred in this case. The Panel also stated it would have considered larger fines and cost awards without a Joint Submission on Penalty. Normally, the Panel would order publication of the decision on a named basis. In this case, it considered the parties’ joint proposal to maintain the anonymity of the Member and Permit Holder to be reasonable. As the conduct had occurred in 2010, the Panel determined enough time had passed for justice to be served and the profession to be properly regulated without the publication of names.
Case No. 12-010-FH and 13-008-FH continued
review to ensure that the foundation was constructed in accordance with the design and that the shotcrete was applied to the foundation of the Project to the proper thickness. The Panel found that these failures, combined with the false assurances given in the Schedule C-2 that there were no changes and that the field review obligations had been fulfilled, constituted conduct that displayed a lack of knowledge or a lack of skill or judgment in the carrying out of the duty or obligation undertaken by the Member. In reviewing the charges against the Permit Holder, the Hearing Panel found the Permit Holder’s failure to prepare and maintain a Project Construction Checklist as required by the policy in its Professional Practice Management Plan (PPMP), and its consequent failure to assess the complexity of the Project and to provide adequate oversight for the work, constituted conduct that displayed a lack of knowledge of, or a lack of skill or judgment in, the carrying out of a duty or obligation undertaken by the Permit Holder. The Panel considered that it is essential for a Permit Holder to not only have an adequate PPMP but to actually implement and follow it for all projects. PPMPs are intended to provide procedures and policies to assist in ensuring competent practice. They are an important part of the profession’s duty to the public to practice in a safe and competent manner. Based on a Joint Submission on Penalty presented to and accepted by the Hearing Panel the Panel made orders for Member to: 1. Pay a fine in the amount of $1,000 within 1 month of the decision; 2. Complete the National Professional Practice Exam within 1 year of the decision; 3. Complete a Safety Codes Council course, Introduction to Safety Codes System in Alberta, within 1 year of the decision; 4. Receive formal reprimand for his conduct, which the Discipline Committee’s written decision is to serve as; and 5. Pay hearing costs in the amount of $4,000 within 2 months of the decision.
Signed, TIM CARTMELL, P.ENG. Panel Chair, APEGA Discipline Committee DIANA PURDY, P.GEOL. Panel Member, APEGA Discipline Committee KEN LIU, P.ENG . Panel Member, APEGA Discipline Committee MURIEL DUNNIGAN Public Member, APEGA Discipline Committee Date: April 24, 2017
74 | PEG WINTER 2017
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker