THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No.: 18-013-RDO continued
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, or e) displays a lack of knowledge of or lack of skill 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. 23. The conduct of the Member, by virtue of his participation in the collusion scheme in Longueuil, Quebec, between 2005 and 2010, would constitute a violation of Rules of Conduct #3 and #5 if he had been a member of APEGA during the relevant time. The Member, however, did not register with APEGA until April 9, 2013. As such, the Member was not bound by Section 44(1) of the Act and the APEGA Code of Ethics . The Investigative Panel finds the sanctions imposed by the OIQ for the Member's participation in the collusion scheme to be reasonable. 24. The Member, P.Eng., has breached the Act, and therefore engaged in unprofessional conduct by: Rule of Conduct # 3: Failing to conduct himself with integrity, honesty, fairness and objectivity by obstructing the OIQ investigation by misleading the trustee during an interview in Montreal, Quebec, on May 13, 2016. or judgment in the carrying out of any duty or obligation undertaken in the practice of the profession,
16. On August 20, 2018, OIQ published the discipline decision on the conduct of the Member. The deci- sion was dated July 9, 2018, and brief correction to the July 9, 2018, decision was dated July 18, 2018. The decision documented the Disciplinary Council's finding that the Member was found guilty on all three charges and outlined the sanctions for each count as outlined in paragraph 10 above, totalling $22,500 payable within 12 months of the date of the order. 17. The OIQ decision outlined the specific role played by the Member. When the Member was promoted to VP Business Development at Dessau, the system of con- tract sharing between the engineering firms Genivar, consultants SM, SNC-Lavalin, CIMA, and Dessau had been in place for some years in the City of Longueuil. By this system, the firm winning the contract from the City of Longueuil was informed by a representa- tive of the city before the bidding became public. This firm was required to bid at an X price and notify the other four firms to bid at a higher price. The Member was the person designated at Dessau to receive this information from the City of Longueuil and retransmit it to the colluding engineering firms. 18. On October 12, 2018, written response, and Novem- ber 6, 2018, interview with Investigation Panel, the Member admitted his conduct as outlined in the OIQ decision and joint summary of facts. The Member regrets his actions and accepts full responsibility for his conduct. 19. The Member's cooperation with the APEGA investi- gation was exemplary. 20. On November 6, 2018, the Member advised the In- vestigation Panel that his intention going forward is to remain a non-practising member of APEGA. D. CONDUCT 21. The Member, P.Eng., freely and voluntarily admits that his conduct, described above, constitutes unprofessional conduct. 22. Section 44(1) of the Act states:
E. RECOMMENDED ORDERS
25. On the recommendation of the Investigative Committee, and by agreement of the Member with
44(1) Any conduct of a professional member, licensee,
SUMMER 2019 PEG | 68
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker