THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No.: 19-001-RDO continued
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 skill 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. Rules of Conduct #1, #3, #4, and # 5 of the Code state: 1. Professional engineers and geoscientists shall, in their areas of practice, hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public and have regard for the environment. 3. Professional engineers and geoscientists shall conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, fairness and objectivity in their professional activities. 4. Professional engineers and geoscientists shall comply with applicable statutes, regulations and bylaws in their professional practices. 5. Professional engineers and geoscientists shall uphold and enhance the honour, dignity and reputation of their professions and thus the ability of the professions to serve the public interest. D. RECOMMENDED ORDERS 19. The Investigative Committee defers to the wisdom of the court in this matter and has determined that there is no need to further address the conduct of Ms. Rogers with additional punitive sanctions. The Investigative Committee, in its legislated role as the body responsible for the investigation of complaints against APEGA members, must, however, act in the public interest and regulate the professions of engineering and geoscience.
14. AEP contacted Ms. Rogers and asked her to explain the anomalous identical results. Ms. Rogers stated that the identical results were an "unusual occurrence" but did not provide any explanation for the identical results. 15. Ms. Rogers falsified the information submitted to AEP in the 2015 report. Ms. Rogers submitted data taken from the 2013 soil testing results. The falsification led to an appearance that the soil parameters were not exceeded and that [Company A] could continue to discharge wastewater on land through irrigation. In reality the parameters had been exceeded for 2015 and [Company A] would not have been permitted to discharge the wastewater. 16. Ms. Rogers pled guilty and fully admitted the conduct as alleged and received a fine of $28,750 and was barred from submitting any documents or reports to AEP where she is the responsible professional member for a period of three years. C. CONDUCT 17. Ms. Rogers freely and voluntarily admits that her conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct and that the Complaint set out above is admitted and proven. 18. Ms. Rogers has therefore engaged in unprofessional conduct and unskilled practice that contravenes the Code, as established under APEGA’s regulations and is detrimental to the best interests of the public, harms or tends to harm the standing of the profession generally, displays a lack of knowledge of or lack of skill or judgment in the practice of the profession, and displays a lack of knowledge of or lack of skill or judgment in the carrying out of any duty or obligation undertaken in the practice of the profession, contrary to Section 44(1) (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the Act and Rules of Conduct #1, #3, #4, and # 5 of the Code. Section 44(1) of the Act states: 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
SUMMER 2019 PEG | 76
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker