Geoffrey Pond

The respondents, a professional engineer and his engineering firm, faced disciplinary proceedings following the partial collapse of a five-storey condominium building under construction.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct, including negligence, failing to safeguard life and property, and failing to comply with applicable building codes.

Specifically, they provided incorrect instructions to a steel fabricator, failed to correct deficient shop drawings, and issued inaccurate field reports indicating the structure was stable when it was not.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the member's licence and the firm's certificate of authorization, and a restriction requiring the member to practice under direct supervision until passing an advanced structural design exam.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a professional engineer and an engineering firm regarding the failed design of a critical structural component of the Nipigon River Bridge.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct, acknowledging they failed to verify critical design assumptions and provided inadequate oversight of a junior engineer.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a four-week licence suspension for the engineer, a requirement for the firm to implement a Quality Assurance Plan, and $200,000 in costs.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario alleged that the member committed professional misconduct after he pled guilty to criminal mischief for vandalizing a bakery's banner.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the allegations, finding that the criminal offence occurred in the member's private capacity and was not sufficiently relevant to his suitability to practise engineering.

The Committee also found that the member's dismissive responses to the Association's investigator did not constitute professional misconduct, as it was not unreasonable for him to decline substantive comment while his criminal trial was pending.