Glenn Richardson

The member, a professional engineer and president of two construction companies, engaged in a false invoicing scheme that illegitimately removed over $33 million from the companies.

The member personally benefited by over $5 million.

Following judicial findings of fraudulent intent by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of Canada, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings.

The member admitted to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering the revocation of the member's license and publication of the decision with names, finding the conduct fundamentally incompatible with the profession.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought a discipline proceeding against the Member for falsifying HVAC testing reports.

The Member admitted to the misconduct in an Agreed Statement of Facts but failed to attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a five-month licence suspension, publication of the decision, and a requirement to complete the National Professional Practice Examination.

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 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 Member and Holder faced disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct related to the preparation and submission of deficient Records of Site Condition (RSCs) to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The Member, who lacked specialized training in environmental matters, repeatedly submitted RSCs with significant errors, omissions, and falsified documents, leading to a prior conviction under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Member and Holder guilty of professional misconduct.

The penalty included a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and a permanent restriction prohibiting them from providing environmental engineering services.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member and his engineering firm for professional misconduct related to the design of Open Web Steel Joists for a school addition.

The member, who lacked expertise in steel joist design, submitted drawings and calculations containing numerous errors and failing to comply with the Ontario Building Code and applicable standards.

The member admitted to the allegations, acknowledging he undertook work for which he was not qualified and failed to maintain the standards of a reasonable and prudent practitioner.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and a restriction prohibiting the member from providing structural engineering services until he passes specific examinations.

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 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.

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 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.

The member, a professional engineer, faced allegations of professional misconduct related to inappropriate and disparaging comments made during a PEO Council election campaign.

The member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand to be recorded on the register for six months and publication of the findings without the member's name, noting the member's cooperation, lack of prior disciplinary history, and personal health challenges as mitigating factors.

A professional engineer and his employer faced discipline following the collapse of a temporary stage at Downsview Park that killed one worker and injured three others.

The engineer admitted to professional misconduct for preparing inadequate structural drawings, conducting an inadequate field review, and affirming the structural adequacy of the stage without a reasonable basis.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, revoking the engineer's licence and ordering publication of the findings with his name.

The corporate respondent, which had declared bankruptcy, was fined $5,000 payable if it ever seeks reinstatement of its Certificate of Authorization.

The respondents, a professional engineer and a certificate of authorization holder, admitted to professional misconduct regarding the flawed design of cantilevered formwork and falsework for a bridge rehabilitation project in New Brunswick.

An independent expert concluded the design contained serious errors and could have resulted in a collapse.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The engineer's licence was suspended for three months and restricted from acting as a supervising engineer, the corporate respondent's certificate was restricted, and the respondents were ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and receive a reprimand.

The member and his firm faced professional discipline for signing and sealing deficient shop drawings and calculations for structural support beams, and for undertaking structural engineering work outside their competence.

The member admitted to the allegations of professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted the admission and found the member guilty.

In determining the penalty, the Committee considered the member's cooperation, out-of-pocket remediation of the errors, and changes to his practice.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a restriction prohibiting the member from practicing structural engineering (with limited exceptions for platforms), and a limited practice review, but declined to impose a licence suspension.