THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 16-016-RDO continued
• Mr. Saunders did not attend the mall on April 12, 2012, and had no involvement in the “on-site review” • On May 3, 2012, Mr. Saunders co-signed, with Mr. Wood, a report entitled Structural Condition Inspection based on Mr. Wood’s April 12, 2012 on- site review. This report was not sealed, contrary to the requirements of the Act • The May 3, 2012 report did not identify any structural concerns with the Mall, and stated that the beams inspected were “structurally sound” and that “no visual signs of distress were observed” • Prior to co-signing the May 3 report, Mr. Saunders was advised by Mr. Wood that the report was requisitioned by Mall representatives for the purposes of financing and that Mr. Wood, during his on-site inspection, had been taken by a Mall employee to the worst areas of leakage in the Mall. Mr. Wood informed Mr. Saunders that he looked at the steel above the ceiling tiles in these areas and found no loss of section on any of the beams inspected. Mr. Wood reviewed with Mr. Saunders all of the pictures Mr. Wood took of the Mall structure during his on-site inspection. Based upon Mr. Wood’s representations, Mr. Saunders co-signed the May 3 report. Those representations by Mr. Wood turned out to be false • The April 12, 2012 on-site review, the April 30 letter and the May 3 report were deficient because Mr. Wood: i. Failed to consider previous reports that were available to him ii. Failed to look at important parts of the Mall that he knew, or should have known, ought to be inspected iii. Failed to adequately inspect or examine those parts of the Mall that he did look at iv. Failed to notice, or failed to appreciate, the effects of continued leakage on the structural integrity of the Mall v. Drew conclusions about the structural integrity of the Mall without an adequate basis for doing so vi. Failed to notice or to identify the effects of corrosion on structural elements of the Mall vii. Failed to identify deficiencies that compromised the structural integrity of the Mall
d) Mr. Saunders was employed by M.R. Wright and Associates Co. Ltd. (MRW) in Ontario during the relevant time. He was one of the individuals involved with evaluating the structural integrity of the rooftop parking structure of the Algo Centre Mall in Elliott Lake, Ontario, which subsequently partially collapsed on June 23, 2012. e) MRW was a company registered in Ontario, holding a valid Certificate of Authorization with PEO. MRW also held a valid APEGA Permit to Practice (P2P) during the relevant time, having received a P2P from APEGA on March 1, 2012. MRW has since resigned, and their P2P was cancelled by APEGA effective March 20, 2013, when the company was dissolved. 2. Facts Relating to the Allegations a) The PEO written Decision & Reasons in the matter regarding the conduct of Mr. Saunders was en- dorsed on May 18, 2016. The document is publicly available on the PEO website. The document details the Agreed Statement of Facts signed by Mr. Saunders, and lists both the misconduct to which he admitted, and the sanctions imposed by PEO: • The matter relates to the structural investigation of the Algo Centre Mall (“the Mall”) in Elliot Lake, Ontario, and the subsequent partial collapse of the rooftop parking structure of the Mall on June 23, 2012, which killed two people • Mr. Saunders was the Contact Professional for MRW at the time of the Mall collapse • Mr. Robert G. Wood, P.Eng. was the President of MRW • Mr. Wood’s licence was suspended by PEO effective November 16, 2011 • On April 12, 2012, Mr. Wood attended at the Mall to conduct a “structural condition inspection” at the request of the Mall’s management • On April 30, 2012, Mr. Saunders co-signed, with Mr. Wood, a letter to the Mall’s management stating in part, “We have no structural concerns
over the additional loading of caulking or waterproofing.” The letter was not sealed, contrary to the requirements of the Act
78 | PEG SUMMER 2017
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker