Summer 2019 PEG

THE DISCIPLINE FILE

Case No.: 18-011-RDO continued

ii) a registered architectural professional where architectural work is involved, or iii) both a registered engineering professional and registered architectural professional, and b) that field reviews during construction of a building be performed by i) a registered engineering professional where engineering work is involved, ii) a registered architectural professional where architectural work is involved, or iii) both a registered engineering professional and registered architectural professional. Member of APEGA and was thus bound by the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act (“the Act") and the APEGA Code of Ethics. b. The Member acknowledged that the Member breached the 2014 Alberta Building Code by failing to perform an adequate field review. 22. The Member acknowledges that the conduct described above constitutes unprofessional conduct and unskilled practice as defined in Section 44(1) of the Act: 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, or e) displays a lack of knowledge of or lack of skill D. CONDUCT 21. The Member freely and voluntarily admits that: a. At all relevant times the Member was a

14. The friend provided the Member with a printout of the beam design report from the supplier. 15. The Member did not enter the attic to verify the beam size and its installation. The Member relied upon details provided by the friend for the site report and trusted that the friend had properly installed the beam. 16. The Member misinterpreted the role as design re- view rather than inspection. 17. The Member did not intentionally misrepresent the involvement or level of review as noted in the site report. 18. The Member's friend did not advise the Member of the conditions for the issuance of the building permit, namely, "a field review bearing the seal of a regis- tered professional engineer for the as-built structure at the framing inspection." 19. The forensic engineering report showed that the beam consisted of two individual plies and not three as documented by the Member in the site report. Additionally, the forensic engineering report showed that the beam plies had not been properly glued or nailed together, and that some of the ceiling joists had not been properly connected to the beam. 20. The Member failed to comply with the 2014 Alberta Building Code, which states: "Field review means a review of the work to which a project relates at the project site, and at locations where building components are fabricated for use at the project site." Pursuant to Division C, Part 2, Administrative Provi- sions, Section 2.4 Professional Design and Review, Sub-Section 2.4.2 Professional Involvement, and Sub-Section 2.4.2.1 (9): If the size or complexity of a project may give rise to special safety concerns, the authority having jurisdic- tion may require: a) that all or part of the plans and specifications of a

building be imprinted with a stamp or seal by i) a registered engineering professional where engineering work is involved,

or judgment in the carrying out of any duty or obligation undertaken in the practice of the profession,

73 | PEG SUMMER 2019

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker