David Germain

The respondents, a licensed professional engineer and his engineering firm, faced discipline for providing deficient structural engineering drawings and allowing an unlicensed employee to hold himself out as a professional engineer.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct, including negligence and undertaking work outside their competence.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension of the member's licence and the firm's Certificate of Authorization, and a restriction prohibiting them from providing structural engineering services.

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 Member and Holder faced professional discipline allegations regarding their review and approval of inadequate design drawings and hydraulic calculations for a building's fire protection system.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts in which the Member and Holder admitted to professional misconduct for failing to maintain reasonable engineering standards and failing to comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, remedial coursework, and practice restrictions.

The Committee also ordered that the decision be published with names to serve the goals of openness, transparency, and general deterrence.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member and his certificate of authorization holder for professional misconduct.

The member, whose expertise was in structural engineering, designed a septic system that failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code and was outside his area of competence.

The matter proceeded on an uncontested basis with an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted the joint submission, ordering a reprimand, a three-week suspension, and a restriction prohibiting the member from providing environmental engineering services until he passes specific examinations.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for signing and sealing an inadequate structural review for a railing system and providing engineering services without a Certificate of Authorization.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

A joint submission on penalty proposed a reprimand, a 7-day suspension, and a requirement to pass examinations, failing which a 10-month suspension would be imposed.

Independent Legal Counsel advised that the contingent future suspension was unlawful.

The Discipline Committee rejected this advice, finding it had jurisdiction under section 28(4)(d) of the Professional Engineers Act to impose the contingent suspension as a condition on the Member's licence.

The joint submission on penalty was accepted.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought professional misconduct allegations against a member and his engineering firm regarding inaccurate heating and cooling load calculations for a residential solarium.

The member signed and sealed revised calculations prepared by a technician without checking them, resulting in a significantly undersized cooling unit.

The member admitted to the facts and pled guilty to professional misconduct for negligence and for sealing documents not actually prepared or checked by him.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, publication without names, and successful completion of the Professional Practice Examination within 14 months, failing which a 10-month suspension would apply.