THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 16-016-RDO continued
viii. Implicitly affirmed the structural integrity of the Mall without having an adequate basis for doing so • Although Mr. Saunders co-signed the April 30 letter and May 3 report, he had not visited the Mall, did not insist on seeing any drawings or field notes, nor did he examine MRW’s own records to ascertain whether there had been any prior reports relating to the Mall. He did not inquire, and therefore did not know, that there was a long history of leakage at the Mall. He did not closely question Mr. Wood as to the limited scope of his inspection and whether it was sufficiently comprehensive in the circumstances. Mr. Saunders did not ask, and therefore did not know, that Mr. Wood had failed to take any measurements of the beams that were referred to in the May 3 report as being “structurally sound,” nor had Mr. Wood inspected the condition of the welds at connections in areas experiencing leakage • In all the circumstances, Mr. Saunders should have taken steps to double-check Mr. Wood’s work. He should have been much more careful. Mr. Saunders did not conduct a proper or adequate review of the April 30 letter or the May 3 report or the work leading to them, and fell below the expected standard of practice in his supervision of Mr. Wood’s work in connection with the April 30 letter and the May 3 report • Mr. Saunders admits that the work carried out by him in connection with the April 30 letter and May 3 report was deficient and fell below the expected standard of practice for engineering work of this type • On June 23, 2012, about two months after the April 12 inspection, a portion of the Mall’s rooftop parking structure collapsed causing two deaths, several non-fatal injuries, and substantial damage to a number of areas of the Mall. After the Mall collapse, Mr. Saunders cooperated with the Association and the Ontario Provincial Police in their investigations • The cause of the collapse was failure of a heavily corroded steel connection located below the parking deck. The expert report commissioned by the Ontario Provincial Police following the collapse concluded that the general
condition of the structure of the Mall was poor. The experts found that the welds and other components of the connections in more than 40% of the locations they inspected had severe to very severe corrosion. The expert report concluded that corrosion was a widespread issue that affected significantly more than the connection that ultimately failed • Mr. Saunders agreed that he was guilty of professional misconduct as follows: i. On or about April 30, 2012, and May 3, 2012, signing a final engineering opinion without applying a seal contrary to Section 53 of Regulation 941 of the Act, amounting to professional misconduct pursuant to Section 72(2)(g) of Regulation 941 of the Act. ii. On or about April 30, 2012, and May 3, 2012, signing an engineering opinion confirming the structural integrity of a building without making reasonable provision to ensure the validity of the opinion, amounting to professional misconduct pursuant to Sections 72(2)(a) and (d) of Regulation 941 of the Act. iii. By reason of the foregoing, he engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of professional engineering that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by the engineering profession as unprofessional, amounting to professional misconduct under Section 72(2) (j) of the Act. • Mr. Saunders received the following penalties pursuant to a joint sentencing proposal: i. Pursuant to section 28(4)(f) of the Act, the Member shall be reprimanded, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded of the Register for a period of one (1) year; ii. Pursuant to section 28(4)(b) of the Act, the Member’s licence shall be suspended for a period of seven (7) months, commencing 14 days after the day the penalty decision is pronounced by the Discipline Committee; iii. Pursuant to section 28(4)(h) of the Act, the Member shall pay a fine in the amount of $2,000 (two thousand dollars) within 30 days of the date the penalty decision is pronounced by the Discipline Committee;
SUMMER 2017 PEG | 79
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker