Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 70/11
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, PARDU AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
THE ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO
Plaintiff
(Respondent)
– and –
PAUL SIEW CHOON LIM, P. ENG. and P. LIM & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Defendants
(Appellants)
Richard Steinecke and Michelle Kushnir, for the Plaintiff (Respondent)
Ryan Stewart Breedon, for the Defendants (Appellants)
HEARD at Toronto: September 29, 2011
Oral Reasons for Judgment
BY THE COURT (orally)
[1]
Overview
This is an appeal from the decision of the respondent’s Discipline Committee denying costs of a hearing to the appellant on the grounds that the decision of the Complaints Committee to refer the matter for a hearing, was not unwarranted.
[2]
Issue
The parties agree that the issue before us, is whether it was reasonable for the Discipline Committee to conclude that the referral to it by the Complaints Committee was warranted.
[3]
Analysis
As part of its duties under paragraph 24 of the Professional Engineers Act, the Committee obtained an opinion from a professional engineer. Before the Discipline Committee, the engineer’s qualifications to give expert opinion evidence on the standard of practice in the profession in relation to HVAC systems was accepted by the appellants’ counsel. Ultimately, the opinion of the engineer was disregarded by the Discipline Committee in reaching its conclusion that the member’s design, while not exemplary, did not fall below acceptable standards.
4After giving his evidence and being cross-examined, the engineer advised an answer to a question from a Committee member that he had no experience with high-velocity HVAC systems because he considered that they had undesirable qualities. Prior to that in cross-examination, he said that he would not typically be retained to provide engineering services for sub-divisions.
5The appellants’ vigorous submission is, that a more careful investigation by the Complaints Committee would have led it to reject the opinion it received and accordingly, the referral to the Discipline Committee was not warranted.
6In our opinion, the Discipline Committee at pages 6 and 7 of its carefully considered reasons on the issue of costs, correctly assessed the role of the Complaints Committee in determining whether a matter should be referred onto a hearing.
7The Discipline Committee’s finding that based upon the information before the Complaints Committee, its decision to defer was not unwarranted, was a reasonable one.
8We have no reason to interfere with it. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed.
COSTS
[9]
Costs
Costs payable to the respondent fixed at $5,000.00 inclusive.
JENNINGS J.
PARDU J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 29, 2011
Date of Release: October 6, 2011
CITATION: Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario v. Lim, 2011 ONSC 5789
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 70/11
DATE: 20110929
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, PARDU AND
HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
THE ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO
Plaintiff
(Respondent)
– and –
PAUL SIEW CHOON LIM, P. ENG. and P. LIM & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Defendants
(Appellants)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 29, 2011
Date of Release: October 6, 2011