THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 17-019-RDO continued
a) is detrimental to the best interests of the public; b) contravenes a code of ethics of the profession as established under the regulations;. . . . . .whether or not that conduct is disgraceful or dishonourable, constitutes either unskilled practice of the profession or unprofessional conduct, whichever the Discipline Committee or the Appeal Board finds. e) [Permit Holder A] also acknowledges that the conduct described above breaches Rules of Conduct #3 and #5 of the Code of Ethics : 3 Professional engineers and geoscientists shall comply with applicable statutes, regulations and bylaws in their professional practices. 5 Professional engineers and geoscientists shall uphold and enhance the honour, dignity and reputation of their professions and thus the ability of the professions to serve the public interest. Committee, and by agreement of [Permit Holder A] with that recommendation, following a discussion and review with the Discipline Committee’s Case Manager, the Discipline Committee hereby orders that: 1. [Permit Holder A] is hereby directed to cease requiring employees, contractors, or others to withdraw a complaint that has been submitted to APEGA, as part of a settlement of a dispute between [Permit Holder A] and its employees, contractors, or others. 2. [Permit Holder A] shall receive a Letter of Reprimand, a copy of which will be maintained permanently in its registration file and may be considered at any future date by APEGA. 3. The details of this matter will be published on APEGA’s website and/or in The PEG magazine, but will be published in a manner that does not identify the names of the parties. 23. The parties submit that the Orders referred to above are appropriate, having regard to the following factors: a. [Permit Holder A] was unaware that requiring a requested withdrawal of a complaint D. RECOMMENDED ORDERS 22. On the recommendation of the Investigative
respect to an outstanding complaint to APEGA. [Permit Holder A] indicated that it did not intend to interfere with APEGA’s discharge of its statutory duties and that it understood that APEGA would make its own determination of the matters raised in the First Complaint. 19. [Permit Holder A] also acknowledged that it is now aware that requiring an individual to withdraw a complaint to APEGA as part of the settlement of a dispute could potentially interfere with APEGA’s ability to fulfill its statutory mandate to investigate complaints in furtherance of the public interest, and that similar requests would not be made in the future. 20. Accordingly, [Permit Holder A] confirmed that it was willing to resolve the Current Complaint with- out the need for further extensive investigation. C. CONDUCT 21. [Permit Holder A] freely and voluntarily admits that: a) [Permit Holder A] required the Complainant to submit a request to withdraw the First Com- plaint and to advise APEGA that he no longer had concerns about the conduct of [Permit Holder A] and his Former Supervisor as part of the settlement of an employment dispute. b) [Permit Holder A’s] actions in doing so were inappropriate. c) Although the Investigative Committee proceed- ed to investigate the First Complaint with full compliance by [Permit Holder A] and participa- tion by the Complainant, notwithstanding the Complainant’s purported withdrawal request, such a requirement could have potentially inter- fered with the Investigative Committee’s ability to fulfill its statutory mandate. d) [Permit Holder A] acknowledges that the con- duct described above constitutes unprofes- sional conduct as defined in the Act : 44(1) Any conduct of a professional member, licensee, permit holder, certificate holder or mem- ber-in-training that in the opinion of the Discipline Committee or the Appeal Board:
SPRING 2018 PEG | 67
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker