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.