THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 17-020-RDO continued
Signed, MR. HARPREET S. DINSA, P.ENG.
I hereby expressly waive my right to do so. I confirm that I agree to the facts and admissions as set out above in this Recommended Discipline Order, and that I agree with the Orders that are jointly proposed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned agrees with the Agreed Statement of Facts and Acknowledgment of Unprofessional Conduct in its entirety.
GEORGE ANDERSON, P.ENG. Panel Chair, APEGA Investigative Committee WANDA GOULDEN, P.ENG., P.GEO . Panel Chair, APEGA Discipline Committee Date: December 19, 2017
Date: December 14, 2017
Case No.: 17-021-RDO
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENGINEERING AND GEOSCIENCE PROFESSIONS ACT, AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDUCT OF [PROFESSIONAL MEMBER A], P.ENG.
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”). The investigation has been conducted with respect to a complaint initiated by [Complainants B] (the “Complainants”) who submitted a letter of complaint dated May 30, 2016. A. BACKGROUND The Complainants purchased a home in September/ October 2014 located on an acreage in [Alberta County C]. The house, built in 1990, contained a preserved wood foundation (PWF) basement consisting of only a 4-foot crawlspace. As part of the purchase process, the previous owners (the “Client”) retained the Member to inspect the PWF basement of the home. This was initiated by the Complainant’s Realtor to ensure the foundation was structurally intact without major issues. The Member completed an onsite inspection and produced a report that did not identify any concerns. In his report, the Member stated, “…no long-term problems and suggests this foundation is quite adequate in all relevant ways for the foreseeable future.” Furthermore, the Member recommended that a follow-up engineering inspection of the crawlspace be completed again in 12–15 years.
The Complainants were also required to have a home inspector inspect the home as a condition of the purchase of the home. This inspection was completed after the Member’s inspection. The home inspector identified wood rot within the built-up platform associated with the construction of the jet tub located in the master ensuite, which included floor joists and plywood decking, and these defects were noted while the home inspector was inside the crawlspace. The Member was contacted by the Client regarding the home inspector’s findings. The Member returned to the site to re-inspect the identified area of concern, and supplied a second report that outlined repair requirements for the specific damages referenced in that report. The Member believes his Client did not share the second report with the Complainants as the sale price was renegotiated, and the difference settled on was less than the repair cost estimate the Member provided. In June 2015, the house was hit by a hail storm, requiring repairs to the siding and roof. During the repair of the property, further rotting of the PWF basement was discovered on the southwest side of the house. Again, the damage could be seen from the PWF crawl space. The Complainants allege the Member, when contacted, also offered to come back to look at the property; however, the Member did not re-visit the site and did not contact the Complainant again.
70 | PEG SPRING 2018
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker