THE DISCIPLINE FILE
The Hearing Panel ordered that its decision should be published or circulated as set out below: i. A written summary of the decision shall be published in the PEG, in a manner that identifies Mr. Pybus, DFK Engineering and its principal, Dennis Burton; ii. APEGA will provide a copy of the Discipline Committee’s decision to the individuals and companies referred to in the documents contained at TAB 25 of the Investigative Committee’s Index of Documents; iii. APEGA will provide a copy of the Discipline Committee’s decision to all municipalities in the Province of Alberta; and iv. If any member of the public inquires with APEGA as to whether Mr. Pybus, DFK or its principal, Dennis Burton, was the subject of a discipline hearing or was found guilty of any charges under the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act, APEGA shall be at liberty to provide the member of the public with a complete copy of the Discipline Committee’s decision. The Hearing Panel included in its decision the following message for members: Members are reminded that adequate knowledge and skill in a field of practice are of paramount importance in being a Professional Engineer or a Professional Geoscientist. Being an engineer or geoscientist alone does not grant right or hold privilege to authenticate and sign- off on professional documents for work that they are not competent to perform. The “chain of custody” of documents, sometimes called the paper trail, from professional to professional is a mandatory function of a Member and a Permit Holder under the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act (“EGP Act”). For an APEGA investigation, failure by an investigated member or permit holder to provide requested documentation and refusal to attend an interview are both unacceptable. These requests are critical and necessary for a self- governing body to make. Such refusals
After hearing submissions on sanc- tions, the Hearing Panel ordered that the following sanctions apply to Mr. Pybus. 1. Mr. Pybus is ineligible to apply for registration from APEGA for a period of five years from the date of this decision. This is a serious sanction and was given careful consideration by the Discipline Panel. It was based on the seriousness of the charges, the potential safety risk to the public, and a pattern of behavior inconsistent with APEGA membership. 2. If Mr. Pybus satisfies all of the sanctions in this decision and applies
a. Failing to submit to an interview despite requests to do so on behalf of the Investigative Committee; and b. Failing to provide all documents related to fire sprinkler system designs, installation, inspections and verifications performed by DFK Engineering since February 1, 2001 despite being directed to do so on behalf of the Investigative Committee. It was alleged that the above-refer- enced conduct constituted unprofessional conduct or unskilled practice as set out in s. 44 of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act and contravenes the Rules of Conduct #1, #2, #3, #4, and/or #5 of APEGA’s Code of Ethics. In its decision the Hearing Panel noted that Peter Pybus and DFK Engineering pled guilty to all charges and the evidence and testimony presented including the admissions made by Peter Pybus in his cross-examination provided compelling reasons to accept the pleas of guilty to all charges made by Peter Pybus and DFK Engineering. The Hearing Panel stated that it was concerned about the gravity of the allegations, charges, and findings, coupled with the uncertainty around how many documents were not properly authenticated. The absence of full and complete records, including lost records, was such that the Hearing Panel acknowledged that it did not know actual numbers and that the total number of alleged unauthenticated documents was uncertain but could be substantial. The Hearing Panel also stated that the defective designs, deficient construction, and inadequate site reviews in any identified or unidentified documents lead the Hearing Panel to recommend that appropriate mitigation measures are to be undertaken to ensure that the level of safety offered by sprinkler systems installed by DFK Engineering should be reviewed to determine that they meet the requirements of the Building Codes of the jurisdictions having authority. The Hearing Panel therefore found Peter Pybus and DFK Engineering guilty of unprofessional conduct and unskilled practice.
for reinstatement of his APEGA membership and if he receives a
license, the Discipline Panel orders that he will be required to work under the supervision of a Professional Engineer for two years. 3. Mr. Pybus will pay the maximum allowable fine of $10,000. 4. Mr. Pybus, as a Professional Member and the Responsible Member of DFK Engineering’s Permit to practice, will pay 50% of hearing costs to a maximum of $53,755.89. 5. APEGA will prepare a Letter on Sanctions and retain the letter on Mr. Pybus’s file. 6. APEGA will notify the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (APEGS) about this decision and forward a copy. The Hearing Panel ordered that the following sanctions apply to DFK Engineering: 1. The Permit Holder license is permanently revoked for DFK Engineering Canada Ltd. This is a serious sanction and was given careful consideration by the Discipline Panel. It was based on the seriousness of the charges, the potential safety risk to the public, and a pattern of behavior inconsistent with APEGA membership. 2. DFK Engineering will pay the maximum allowable fine of $10,000. 3. DFK Engineering will pay 50% of hearing costs to a maximum of $53,755.89. 4. APEGA will prepare a Letter on Sanctions as to DFK Engineering and retain the letter on the DFK file.
WINTER 2016 PEG | 63
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker