THE DISCIPLINE FILE
The hearing dealt with the following
sional members and MA Steel were a funda- mental breach of their professional obliga- tions and that their conduct clearly breached Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Ethics and constituted “unprofessional conduct” and “unskilled practice” as defined in section 44(1) and in particular subsections 44(1) (b), 44(1) (c), and 44(1) (e) of the Engineer- ing and Geoscience Professions Act. The Hearing Panel also found that these actions clearly harmed or tended to harm the honour and dignity and standing of the profession. Based on a Joint Submission on Sanc- tions presented to the Hearing Panel, the Hearing Panel imposed a reprimand and a fine of $2500 on each of the four profes- sional members. MA Steel was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $5000.00 and a portion of the costs of the hearing in the amount of $5000.00 within 60 days of the Decision. MA Steel was also required for a period of three years following the Deci- sion, to submit at its own cost to a series of audits, in accordance with detailed sched- ule setting out the scope of the audits, by an independent auditor who has an under- standing of the operation of a steel foundry, including welding and casting procedures. The Hearing Panel also ordered that after each audit, the auditor shall provide a written report to the Director of Enforcement and Permits at APEGA that sets out: the steps taken in the audit; the results of the audit; and any concerns that have been identified as a result of the audit. If any concerns were identified, the concerns could result in a new complaint against MA Steel and/or the professional members employed by MA Steel. The Hearing Panel also accepted and incorporated into its decision, the following professional undertaking given to the Hear- ing Panel and to APEGA by the professional members and MA Steel: The professional members and MA Steel undertake to address MA Steel’s Professional Practice Management Program to develop a chain of responsibility dealing the testing and certification of products produced for clients and to incorporate that chain of responsibility and the necessary policies and procedures into MA Steel’s Professional Practice Management Program and to provide
the revised Professional Practice Management Program to the Director of Enforcement and Permits within 60 days of this Decision. The Hearing Panel emphasized that it regarded this professional undertaking as an essential part of this decision and the orders made and that there must be full and timely compliance with this undertaking. Finally, the Hearing Panel ordered that details of the case will be published in the PEG magazine with MA Steel and the pro- fessional members identified by name and the Decision or a summary of the Decision will also be posted on APEGA’s website. In reaching its decision on sanctions accepting the joint submission on sanc- tions, the Hearing Panel noted that without the full cooperation and acknowledgment of the professional members and MA Steel and evidence that all affected customers had been notified and no issues to date had been found with the castings, the Hearing Panel would have required more severe sanctions. The Hearing Panel noted that any future conduct of this nature could result in significantly more severe sanctions. DECISION OF THE APEGA DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE REGARDING PETER GEOFFREY PYBUS, P.ENG., AND DFK ENGINEERING Date: July 5, 2016 Case No.: 12-015-FH In the matter of of an APEGA Discipline Committee Hearing into the conduct of Peter Geoffrey Pybus, P.Eng. and DFK Engineering Canada Ltd. pursuant to the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act, being Chapter E-11 of the Revised Statues of Alberta 2000. A hearing into this matter was held by a Hearing Panel of the Discipline Committee on October 19, 20 and 21, 2015. Peter Pybus, P.Eng. was at the material time in regard to this hearing, the Responsible Member for Permit Holder DFK Engineering Canada Ltd. (“DFK Engineering”) and the complaint that initiated the investigation that resulted in this hearing was received while he was a Professional Member.
charges: 1. On or about 2006-2011, Peter
Pybus authenticated or permitted DFK Engineering to authenticate on his behalf a number of final plans, specifications, reports or documents of a professional nature relating to fire sprinkler systems when it was inappropriate for him to do so for one or more of the following reasons: a. Pybus was not competent to perform or oversee work relating to the fire sprinkler systems; and b. Pybus relied on other persons to conduct the inspections and failed to exercise adequate supervision and control over their work
prior to authenticating the final plans, specifications, reports, or documents; or
c. relied on plans, specifications, reports or documents that were prepared by other persons, without conducting an adequate or thorough review. 2. Peter Pybus inappropriately issued or permitted DFK Engineering to issue a number of final plans, specifications, reports or documents of a professional nature dated February–December, 2010, bearing a photocopied reproduction of Pybus’s stamp. 3. On or about 2006-2011, DFK Engineering inappropriately issued a number of final plans, specifications, reports or documents of a professional nature relating to fire sprinkler systems particulars of which include: a. DFK Engineering issued final plans, specifications, reports or documents of a professional nature that were not personally stamped and/or signed by Peter Pybus; and b. DFK Engineering issued final plans, specifications, reports or documents of a professional nature without ensuring that the documents were thoroughly reviewed by Peter Pybus or another professional licensee or member. 4. On or about 2011-2012, DFK Engineering failed to comply with its duty to cooperate with the investigation of a complaint initiated by Dale Burton by:
62 | PEG WINTER 2016
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker