THE DISCIPLINE FILE
3. His background and experience have been primarily in the consulting engineering fields, generally related to structural and architectural work in the building construction field, taking on a variety of different projects through his company, [Company D]. 4. The Member made a verbal contract with his client with specific instructions to complete a review and engineering assessment on the conditions of the preserved wood foundation (the bearing components of the floor structure sitting on the footings) of the home. He was not asked to complete a structural analysis of the floor or the walls. 5. The Member did not have a formal, written contract to confirm his scope of work with his client. 6. The Member did access the home's unique crawlspace; however, he did not inspect every area of the crawlspace and did not utilize a checklist to assist with his inspection. 7. The Member did verify the PWF studs (vertical supports) and baseplates (resting on a concrete footing) of the foundation wall were intact and performing as intended. 8. The Member admitted he did not identify some wood rot located in the top plates of the PWF wall framing. 9. The Member also identified some of the interior bearing components of the house (supporting posts and beams) were suspect in nature; however, he did not include any comment regarding this in his report, indicating they did not relate to the PWF system. 10.The Member’s report erroneously indicated the primary structural components of the PWF system appeared to be fine and that it should be rechecked in 12 to 15 years. 11. After being contacted by the Complainants with additional concerns, the Member indicated he had intentions of revisiting the house; however, he got very busy and never made it back out to the house. 12.The Member fully cooperated with the investigation.
Case No. 17-021-RDO continued
The Complainants have corrected the concerns at their cost; however, the damage was clearly caused over an extended period of time. The Complainants trusted the Member as a professional and expected him to be competent in his field of work. Instead they have found issue after issue with the structure of their home that they now own. The Complainants feel the Member failed to identify and inform them of the major concerns regarding the foundation of the house they purchased. They feel the Member’s actions reflect a major oversight that either highlights his incompetence as a professional engineer or his possible affiliation with the previous owners. They feel the Member’s assessment and recommenda- tions were inappropriate and did not in any way protect the Complainants as the buyer. The Member has indicated his scope was to review and comment on the PWF elements only and not to conduct a full structural evaluation of the house. Although rot was found inside the crawlspace, he believes it was associated with the floor and rim joist framing which formed the main floor and contained a raised platform built to house the ensuite hot tub. B. THE COMPLAINT The Investigative Committee appointed an Investiga- tive Panel to conduct an investigation into whether the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct and/ or unskilled practice arising from the field inspection conducted by the Member with respect to the PWF components of the home. A Notice of Investigation was sent to the Member on January 10, 2016, requesting the Member to respond to the Complainant’s allegations. C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The Member attained his degree in civil engineering from [a Canadian university] in May 1985. 2. The Member has been practising as an engineer in Canada for approximately 32 years and has been a member, in good standing, of APEGA since August 26, 1998, with no prior findings of unprofessional conduct or unskilled practice since he has been a member.
D. CONDUCT 13. The Member freely and voluntarily admits that:
SPRING 2018 PEG | 71
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker