Charles McDermott

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario alleged that the respondent engineer and his firm committed professional misconduct by preparing structurally inadequate design plans for three residential projects.

The plans lacked necessary details, failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code, and included elements at risk of collapse.

The respondents, whose expertise was in mechanical rather than structural engineering, admitted to the misconduct via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a $1,000 fine, and a condition that the respondent must practice under supervision if his recently resigned licence is ever reinstated.

The Respondents, a professional engineer and his engineering firm, faced a discipline hearing regarding structural design plans they signed and sealed for two building projects.

The plans were found to be deficient, lacking necessary data such as climatic data, design loads, and connection details, leading to the denial of building permits.

The Respondents admitted to the facts and pleaded guilty to professional misconduct, specifically negligence and failure to comply with applicable standards.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, publication of the decision, and a restriction on their licence requiring direct supervision by another professional engineer.

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 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 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 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.

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 Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a professional engineer and his firm for preparing inadequate design drawings for a retaining wall and failing to cooperate with the subsequent investigation.

The retaining wall, designed using a dead man system, failed shortly after construction, causing property damage and safety concerns.

The Discipline Committee found the respondents guilty of professional misconduct, concluding they were negligent, failed to safeguard property, failed to comply with applicable codes, and acted unprofessionally by ignoring the investigator's inquiries.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought a discipline proceeding against a professional engineer and his firm regarding the design and permitting of a replacement residential sewage system.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct for failing to complete contracted services, failing to submit permit applications in a timely manner, failing to adequately explain requirements to the client, and falsely advising the client that applications had been submitted.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission as to Penalty.

The respondents were reprimanded, the engineer was ordered to successfully complete the National Professional Practice Examination within 14 months, and the findings were ordered to be published.