Leah Price

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 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 firm committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain minimum standards, failing to comply with the Ontario Building Code, and engaging in unprofessional conduct regarding two small-scale residential projects (a stone veneer installation and a deck).

The Discipline Committee dismissed all charges, finding that the Member's brief reports and use of engineering judgment were appropriate for the scale of the projects, did not compromise public safety, and met the standard of a prudent practitioner in the circumstances.

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 appellant, a professional engineer, appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The Committee had found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in vexatious communications with Ministry of Transportation engineers regarding bridge design, while dismissing allegations of incompetence.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Committee's decisions on both liability and penalty were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appeal was dismissed, with a minor modification to the timeline for completing the Professional Practice Examination.

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.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for providing structural engineering services without a Certificate of Authorization and outside his area of competence.

The member provided deficient structural drawings for a residential renovation that posed grave safety risks.

The member admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month licence suspension, a permanent restriction prohibiting him from practising structural engineering, and publication of the decision.

The Member and his engineering firm pled guilty to professional misconduct for signing and sealing deficient mechanical, electrical, and fire safety drawings for a proposed hotel and retail building.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, which included the revocation of the Member's licence and Certificate of Authorization, suspended on the condition that the Member resign, surrender his Certificate, and never reapply.

The Committee ordered the decision to be published with names, finding that the penalty amounted to a revocation triggering mandatory publication under the Professional Engineers Act, and that publication was in the public interest.

The member, an electrical engineer, signed and sealed a letter to a municipality certifying that structural work for a solar panel installation had been completed in accordance with engineering drawings.

In fact, the member had not inspected the work, and approximately half of the required attachment plates were missing, creating a potential risk to public safety.

The member admitted to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month suspension of the member's licence and his company's Certificate of Authorization, publication of the decision, and a requirement that the member pass the Professional Practice Examination.

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.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario appealed a Discipline Committee decision dismissing allegations against a member and his professional corporation.

The Committee found it lacked jurisdiction over the corporation's conduct prior to it obtaining a Certificate of Authorization, and dismissed allegations against the member regarding failure to complete contracted work due to insufficient evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's interpretation of its home statute regarding pre-licensure jurisdiction was reasonable and correct, and its factual findings regarding the scope of the contract were reasonable and entitled to deference.

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.

The member and his engineering firm faced discipline for professional misconduct related to the structural design and post-construction review of a post and beam house.

The member admitted to preparing deficient structural drawings that failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code and to issuing a false review letter stating that periodic site reviews had been conducted when they had not.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission as to Penalty, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The panel ordered a reprimand, publication of the decision without names, and a requirement for the member to successfully complete the Professional Practice Examination within 14 months, failing which his licence would be suspended.

The appellant brought a statutory appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The appeal raised an important issue regarding the jurisdiction of a Discipline Committee over a member's prior conduct.

As the respondents did not participate, the Divisional Court adjourned the appeal and granted leave under Rule 13.03 to request Pro Bono Law Ontario to appoint amicus curiae to assist the court.

The applicant, a professional engineer, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent's Complaints Committee refusing to refer his complaint against another engineer to the Discipline Committee.

The applicant alleged the other engineer engaged in professional misconduct by inappropriately sharing confidential shop drawings with a competitor and having a conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court found that while the Complaints Committee's written reasons were defective for lacking transparency, the record before the Committee provided ample justification for its decision.

Applying the principles from Newfoundland Nurses, the court supplemented the reasons with the record and concluded the decision was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants brought two motions in relation to their application for judicial review of a decision by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario Discipline Committee.

The first motion sought to compel the Committee to include a full transcript of the oral evidence in the record of proceedings.

The second motion sought an interim stay of the discipline proceedings pending the judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions, finding that the relevant statutes do not oblige the Committee to order and pay for a transcript if one has not been prepared, and that the application for judicial review was premature as the administrative proceedings had not yet concluded.

The appellant, a foreign-trained engineer, appealed a decision of the Registration Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario refusing to issue him a licence.

The Committee found he did not meet the requirement of having at least 12 months of supervised engineering experience in Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee correctly rejected the appellant's argument that the licensing requirement violated his s. 2(d) Charter right to freedom of association.

The Court also held that the Committee's factual findings regarding his lack of Canadian engineering experience and its discretionary decision to exclude hearsay reference letters were reasonable.

The appellants, a professional engineer and his company, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario refusing to award them costs after staying a disciplinary proceeding against them.

The Discipline Committee had stayed the proceeding indefinitely because the referral lacked sufficient detail to identify the complaint.

However, the Committee later refused to award costs, finding the proceeding was not unwarranted.

The Divisional Court held that the decision to deny costs was unreasonable, as the Committee had already concluded the allegations were so deficient that a finding of professional misconduct could not succeed.

The Court awarded the appellants $26,000 in costs for the hearing and the appeal.

The Registrar of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario appealed a decision of the Registration Committee directing the issuance of a professional engineering licence to the respondent.

The respondent, who held a foreign bachelor's degree and a Canadian master's degree, had previously failed two technical examinations assigned by the Academic Requirements Committee.

The Registration Committee found that the respondent's master's degree, combined with his foreign bachelor's degree, met the academic equivalency requirements for licensure.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee's decision was justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.