Alisa Chaplick

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep Animal(s) in Care (DTK) and a Statement of Account (SOA) for $1,801.11 issued by Animal Welfare Services after his three cats were removed from his flooded apartment while he was hospitalized.

At the hearing, the appellant conceded he could not currently house the cats, and the Board confirmed the DTK.

However, based on the appellant's credible testimony regarding his severe financial hardship, ongoing health issues, and unhoused status, the Board revoked the SOA in full.

The appellants appealed a Compliance Order issued by an Animal Welfare Services inspector requiring them to have their dogs and kitten examined by a veterinarian.

The inspector had observed the animals in a state of distress, including low body weight.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Compliance Order, finding the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the animals were in distress.

The Board also declined to order the Minister to reimburse the appellants for the veterinary costs incurred in complying with the order.

The respondents, a professional engineer and his firm, faced discipline for professional misconduct related to the design and review of a residential deck project.

They admitted to signing and sealing sketches with errors, failing to conduct a site visit before issuing a general review report, and failing to update the report.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, finding the respondents guilty of negligence and unprofessional conduct.

The penalty included a reprimand, a 10-day suspension, a requirement to pass the National Professional Practice Examination, and publication of the decision.

The appellant appealed notices of removal and decisions to keep 33 cats and 3 dogs in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, as well as a statement of account for boarding costs.

The parties reached a resolution during the hearing.

The Board issued a consent order reflecting the parties' agreement that the animals would be returned to the appellant following an inspection, the statement of account would be revoked with the right to reissue, and boarding costs would cease to accrue.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought a disciplinary proceeding against a professional engineer and his engineering corporation.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct for signing and sealing a deficient review report regarding foundation waterproofing without conducting a site inspection.

The report was relied upon by the City of Hamilton to close a permit.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding the respondents guilty of negligence and unprofessional conduct.

The respondents were reprimanded, fined $1,000, and the engineer was required to successfully complete the National Professional Practice Examination within 14 months, failing which his licence would be restricted to practising under direct supervision.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after her dog was removed due to health concerns.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent met its evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animal's distress.

The appellant failed to prove the SOA should be revoked.

The Board confirmed the SOA in the amount of $922.08.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $7,600 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the boarding costs of 19 dogs removed from their property.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the costs incurred were reasonable and reflected the actual costs of necessaries provided.

However, the Board accepted the appellants' evidence of their limited financial means, as they were retired and living on a fixed income.

Exercising its discretion under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, the Board varied the SOA, reducing the amount by 50 percent to $3,800.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct for producing a deficient geotechnical engineering report that duplicated large portions of another firm's report, and for providing engineering services without a Certificate of Authorization.

The member admitted to the facts and pled guilty to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month licence suspension, and a restriction prohibiting the member from providing geotechnical engineering services.

The member was found guilty of professional misconduct after being convicted of criminal fraud over $5,000 against his employer.

The member had fabricated quotes and invoices, misappropriating over $446,000.

At the penalty hearing, which the member did not attend, the Discipline Committee revoked his license and ordered the decision published with reasons, citing the size and duration of the fraud, the serious breach of trust, and the need for general deterrence.

The Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario held a penalty hearing following a finding that the respondent member was guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered that the respondent's licence be revoked effective June 27, 2023.

The Committee further ordered that its findings and order be published with reasons and with the respondent's name in the official publication of the Association.

The moving parties requested a third adjournment of their discipline hearing because they retained new counsel who was unavailable on the scheduled dates.

The Discipline Committee denied the request, noting that the previous adjournment had been made peremptory to the moving parties, they had known about the peremptory nature of the dates for a month, and the hearing was still three months away.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for preparing deficient structural drawings and providing professional engineering services without a valid Certificate of Authorization.

The respondent admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts, acknowledging that the drawings lacked material data, cited an outdated Building Code, and failed to make reasonable provision for the safeguarding of the public.

The Discipline Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding it did not meet the high threshold for rejection established in Anthony-Cook.

The respondent was reprimanded, his licence was suspended for two months, he was fined $2,500, and a restriction was placed on his licence requiring the successful completion of structural engineering examinations.

The moving parties, a professional engineer and a certificate of authorization holder, requested a second adjournment of their discipline hearing after retaining new counsel who was unavailable for the scheduled June 2023 dates.

The moving parties also requested time to retain an expert and review disclosure.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment to September 2023, ordering that the new dates would be peremptory to the moving parties.

The member was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the PEO.

The member had previously pleaded guilty to criminal fraud over $5,000 for fabricating invoices and misappropriating $446,074.81 from his employer.

The Committee found that the criminal conviction was relevant to his suitability to practise and that his actions constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be scheduled.

The moving parties, a professional engineer and a certificate of authorization holder, requested an adjournment of their discipline hearing because the engineer was out of the country with limited internet access.

The Association opposed the request but provided alternative dates if granted.

The Discipline Committee reluctantly granted the adjournment to the alternative dates, noting the engineer's prior unresponsiveness to scheduling attempts.

The moving party, a professional engineer, sought a stay of discipline proceedings against him, arguing that a 4.5-year delay in the Association's investigation constituted an abuse of process.

The charges arose from a 2017 workplace fatality involving a collapsed arch.

Applying the Supreme Court's framework in Abrametz, the Discipline Committee majority found the delay was inordinate given the investigation's lack of complexity.

However, the Committee unanimously concluded that the moving party failed to establish significant hearing or personal prejudice caused by the delay.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, as the public interest in having the allegations heard on their merits outweighed any harm caused by the delay.

The defendants, Hafiz M. Ahmad and Orbit Engineering Limited, brought a motion for the production of various electronic documents and their metadata from several third parties and the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion in part, ordering several third parties to provide the requested documents in their native electronic format with metadata by a specified date.

The Committee also ordered the Association to make best efforts to provide any expert reports it intended to rely on at the upcoming hearing.

The respondents, a professional engineer and her consulting firm, faced disciplinary proceedings for preparing inadequate and deficient design drawings for a detached garage roof that subsequently failed and sagged.

The respondents admitted to the facts and pled guilty to professional misconduct for failing to safeguard the public and comply with applicable codes.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-week suspension of the member's licence and the firm's Certificate of Authorization, and a restriction prohibiting them from providing structural engineering services until the member passes specific advanced structural examinations.

Following a finding of professional misconduct for preparing inadequate design drawings for a retaining wall and failing to cooperate with the investigation, the Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing.

The member and his firm failed to attend.

The Committee found the member ungovernable due to serious technical failings, an uncaring attitude, and a complete lack of cooperation or remorse.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the member's licence and the firm's Certificate of Authorization, directed publication of a summary of the decision with names, and ordered the respondents to pay $25,000 in costs.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct for offering engineering services to the public without a valid certificate of authorization and failing to cooperate with the Association's remedial requests.

The member admitted to the facts and pled guilty to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, publication of the decision, and $2,000 in costs.