Stella Ball

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought professional misconduct allegations against the respondent, an electrical engineer, after he submitted an 'alternative solution' under the Fire Code for a rental property he owned.

The respondent lacked the training and experience to prepare the alternative solution and had previously been convicted of a Fire Protection and Prevention Act offence for failing to comply with a Fire Safety Inspection Order.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct for undertaking work he was not competent to perform and for his provincial offence conviction.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a $2,500 fine, successful completion of the Professional Practice Examination within 18 months, and a 10-month suspension that would be suspended pending compliance with the examination requirement.

The Discipline Committee determined the penalty for a professional engineer and his company found guilty of professional misconduct for negligently designing a solar tracking device prototype outside his area of competence.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month licence suspension, a permanent restriction limiting his practice to mechanical engineering, successful completion of the Professional Practice Examination, publication of the decision with names, and $2,000 in costs.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario alleged that the member and his company committed professional misconduct in the design of a solar tracking device prototype.

The prototype experienced multiple structural failures after installation due to inadequate wind load calculations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct for negligence, failing to safeguard life and property, undertaking work outside his competence, and unprofessional conduct, noting he was a mechanical engineer with no prior experience designing solar rack structures.

The respondents, a professional engineer and his engineering firm, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to the design of an industrial lifting device.

The respondents admitted to signing and sealing deficient drawings that failed to adequately account for welded connections, lacked necessary construction details, omitted a maximum capacity nameplate, improperly specified a ratchet strap, and failed to apply appropriate structural engineering standards.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the respondents guilty.

Based on a joint submission, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a six-week licence suspension, a restriction requiring direct supervision by another professional engineer, and publication of the decision.