THE DISCIPLINE FILE
In closing, the Hearing Panel also requested that APEGA review the EGP Act, General Regulations and Bylaws and the Code of Ethics and all APEGA policies regarding its stamps, the photocopying of stamps, and the authentication of documents with respect to the technologies being used in the distribution of stamped documents. The
Hearing Panel also requested that APEGA provide short form guidance on the various acceptable methods of applying stamps and on the authentication of documents and suggested that this guidance should be of a form suitable for distribution to the public and other institutions and organizations that require or utilize a professional stamp.
are unprofessional and may lead to charges under the EGP Act or the Code of Ethics. The Responsible Member for a Permit to Practice has the responsibility to ensure that the professional practice of the Per- mit Holder is in strict accordance with the EGP Act and the Code of Ethics .
APEGA Recommended Orders
Date: March 17, 2016
Case No.: 15-007-SO
B] regarding changes that were being made to his original design and proceeded without any discussion with [Professional Member B] thereby failing to address his concerns as a professional.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENGINEERING AND GEOSCIENCE PROFESSIONS ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDUCT OF [PROFESSIONAL MEMBER A], P.ENG.
B. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
As a result of the investigation, it is agreed by and between the Investigative Committee and the Member that: 1. The Member was a professional member of APEGA, and was thus bound by the APEGA Code of Ethics, at all relevant times. 2. The Member holds a Bachelor of Science in Structural Engineering from [Institute Redacted] (1964) and has completed the APEGGA PExams in Civil Engineering (1993). The member is currently the CEO of his own engineering firm, [Company E]. 3. [Company E] held a valid Permit to Practice at all relevant times. 4. The Project’s foundation design, submitted to [Municipality D], was originally designed by [Professional Member B] and later modified by the Member. 5. The duties of the professional Member, when taking over the Project from another, were not fulfilled. The Member did not secure permission to utilize, modify or make changes to the original foundation design created by [Professional Member B]. 6. The Member has fully cooperated with the APEGA investigation and: a. Admitted that another engineer completed the original foundation design and that the Member did not receive authorization or inform the other engineer regarding modifications and changes that were going to be made. b. Demonstrated his extensive background and experience in this field. c. Had previously been involved in a similar project located in the same area at an earlier time. d. Provided a foundation design (for [Project C]) that is adequate and does not pose a risk to the public.
The Investigative Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) has conducted an investigation into the conduct of [Professional Member A], P.Eng., (the “Member”) with respect to a letter of complaint written to APEGA by [Professional Member B], P.Eng., regarding the foundation design and use of drawings for [Project C] (the “Project”) located in [Municipality D], Alberta. A. COMPLAINTS 1. The Member has engaged in unprofessional conduct that was detrimental to the best interests of the public and placed the public’s welfare at risk, contrary to Section 44(1) (a) of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act (“Act”) and Rule of Conduct #1 of the APEGA Code of Ethics (“Code”). The Member jeopardized the safety and welfare of individuals who would frequent the [Building Name Redacted] as it has an inadequate foundation design. 2. The Member has engaged in unskilled practice that displayed a lack of skill in the work undertaken contrary to Section 44(13) (e) of the Act and Rule of Conduct #2 of the Code. The Member was not competent (did not have the training and experience) to undertake the Project’s foundation stabilization system. 3. The Member has engaged in unprofessional conduct that displayed a lack of judgement in maintaining the integrity and honesty of the profession contrary to Section 44(1) (b) of the Act and Rule of Conduct #3 of the Code. The Member failed to secure permission from [Professional Member B] to utilize and modify his drawings. 4. The Member has engaged in unprofessional conduct that displayed a lack of judgement in the carrying out of a duty contrary to Section 44(1) (b) of the Act and Rule of Conduct #5 of the Code. The Member did not engage [Professional Member
C. CONDUCT
The Member freely and voluntarily admits that his conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct and that the Complaints (#3
64 | PEG WINTER 2016
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker