Date: 2024-11-15

Citation: Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Shaw et al, 2024 ONAPE 11

Indexed as: The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Shaw et al, 2024 ONAPE 11

IN THE MATTER OF a hearing under the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a complaint regarding the conduct of Ludmilla (Lucy) Shaw, P.Eng., a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario and LKS Consulting Inc., a holder of a Certificate of Authorization.

BETWEEN:

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)

-and-

Ludmila (Lucy) Shaw, P.ENG. and LKS Consulting Inc.

PANEL MEMBERS: Alisa Chaplick, LL.B., LL.M. CHAIR Paul Ballantyne, P.Eng. MEMBER Anthony Wing, P.Eng. MEMBER

Hearing Dates: 2024-10-07

Decision Date: 2024-11-15

Release of Written: 2024-11-15

Reasons:

NAME OF LAWYER Leah Price and Justin Gattesco, Counsel for the Association (PEO)

NAME OF LAWYER Sue Draper, Paralegal for Ludmilla (Lucy) Shaw, P.Eng. (Licence Holder) and LKS Consulting Inc.

NAME OF LAWYER Susan Heakes, Independent Legal Counsel to the Tribunal

This Panel of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO” or the “Association”) convened to consider the conduct of the Respondents, Ms. Ludmila (Lucy) Shaw, P.Eng. (“Ms. Shaw”), a member of the Association, and LKS Consulting Inc. (“LKS”), a holder of a Certificate of Authorization from the Association. The Panel heard the matter on October 7, 2024, by means of an online video conferencing platform.
This matter was previously scheduled to be heard by a Panel of the Discipline Committee of PEO from July 15 – 18, 2024. However, before the hearing scheduled in July, Ms. Shaw and LKS made a motion to adjourn the matter. In a “Decision, Reasons and Order – Motion to Adjourn”, signed on July 16, 2024, the matter was adjourned to October 7 – 9, 2024 and marked peremptory to Ms. Shaw and LKS. As noted above, the matter was heard on October 7, 2024 (it was not heard on October 8 and 9). The matter was only heard on October 7, 2024 because the parties entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) and Joint Submission as to Penalty and Costs (“JSP”), described below, which obviated the need for a full hearing on the merits.

Ms. Shaw and LKS’s History with PEO’s Discipline Committee and Registration Committee

During the hearing, counsel for the Association advised the Panel that Ms. Shaw and LKS have a history with PEO’s Discipline Committee and PEO’s Registration Committee. Ms. Shaw’s discipline history includes the following:

(a) a decision of the Discipline Committee, pronounced orally on November 14, 2022 and released on December 2, 2022; and,

(b) a decision of the Discipline Committee, pronounced orally on June 12, 2023 and released on July 24, 2023.

The Registration Committee also made a decision on September 11, 2024 which was released on September 20, 2024. In addition to Ms. Shaw and LKS’s agreement to enter into the ASF and JSP in this matter before the Discipline Committee, the Registration Committee found that Ms. Shaw and LKS did not meet the requirements and qualifications of the Act and the regulations, and in particular that they do not meet the requirement to be of good character. The Registration Committee ordered on consent that Ms. Shaw’s licence and the certificate of appointment for LKS be suspended for a period of 6 (six) months or until Ms. Shaw passes the National Professional Practice Examination (“NPPE”), whichever is later.

Registrar’s Certificate

Counsel for the PEO also introduced the Registrar’s Certificate for Ms. Shaw and LKS dated October 1, 2024 (“Registrar’s Certificate”). As per the Registrar’s Certificate, Ms. Shaw and LKS’s history as includes the following:

On November 14, 2022, a permanent reprimand was put on the licence of Ms. Shaw and on the Certificate of Authorization of LKS by a discipline panel;
On June 12, 2023, a permanent reprimand was put on the licence of Ms. Shaw and on the Certificate of Authorization of LKS by a discipline panel;
The licence of Ms. Shaw and the Certificate of Authorization of LKS were suspended by order of a discipline panel from November 14, 2022 to December 25, 2022;
The licence of Ms. Shaw and the Certificate of Authorization of LKS were suspended by order of a discipline panel from June 12, 2023 to September 11, 2023;
On September 11, 2024, the Registration Committee ordered that the licence of Ms. Shaw and the Certificate of Authorization of LKS be suspended for a period of 6 (six) months, or until Ms. Shaw passes the National Professional Practice Examination, whichever is later; and
A number of terms and conditions have been placed on Ms. Shaw’s licence to restrict her from providing various types of engineering services, unless and until she passes various examinations.

Current Matter

Agreed Statement of Facts

Counsel for the Association advised the Panel that the Association, Ms. Shaw and LKS had reached an ASF in the current matter. Counsel for the Association introduced the ASF dated September 27, 2024. The ASF, taken directly therefrom (not including the Schedule) provides as follows:

This Agreed Statement of Facts is made between the Association of Professional Engineers (“PEO”), and the Respondents, Ludmila (Lucy) Shaw, P.Eng. (“Shaw”) and LKS Consulting Inc. (“LKS”) (collectively, the “parties”).

At all material times, Shaw was a professional engineer licensed pursuant to the Act.
At all material times, LKS held a Certificate of Authorization (“CoA”) listing Shaw as the individual accepting professional responsibility for engineering services provided under the CoA.
In or around July or August 2021, the complainant, Stan Petrucci, or his agent contacted Shaw regarding the preparation of as-built structural drawings required by the City of St. Catherines (the “City”) to verify the adequacy of a poured concrete patio built without a permit on the complainant’s property at Unit 1 – 45 Dorchester Blvd., St Catherines, Ontario (the “Property”). Shaw and LKS were verbally retained to complete the drawings.
At no relevant time was LKS insured against professional liability under a policy of professional liability insurance meeting the minimum requirements set out in section 74(1) of Regulation 941.
LKS did not notify the complainant of its professional liability insurance status, nor did it receive written authority to provide engineering services to the complainant without that insurance.
Shaw and LKS issued three drawings in connection with the patio (together, the “Drawings”):

a. Drawing A1.01 “Patio Layout & cross-section” with title block indicating “Unit 1,” signed and sealed by Shaw and dated August 3, 2021;

b. Drawing A1.01 “Patio Layout & cross-section” with title block indicating “Unit 2,” signed and sealed by Shaw and dated August 3, 2021 (together, the “A1.01 Drawings”); and

c. Drawing A1 “Fence”, undated and without signature and seal.

The drawings were prepared by Shaw based on information provided by the complainant. Shaw did not independently verify the accuracy of the information provided.
The drawings were not sufficient to serve as structural design or record drawings and did not provide sufficient information to ensure that construction of the patio was in conformance with the minimum requirements of the Ontario Building Code (“OBC”).
The A1.01 Drawings were deficient for several reasons, including the following:

a. They provided insufficient detail of the layout of the patios in relation to the houses;

b. They did not provide dimensions of the thickened portion of the slab;

c. The clear stone was shown as 6” deep while actual fills were much greater;

d. There was no indication of rebar spacing;

e. There was no vertical reinforcement on the face of the wall shown;

f. There was no means of frost protection shown; and

g. There was no indication of the final grade surrounding the structure.

Drawing A1 was deficient for several reasons, including the following:

a. There was insufficient detail of the layout in relation to the house;

b. The post dimensions provided were incorrect;

c. There was no indication of anchor bolt specifications, spacing or depth;

d. There was no indication of fasteners of the fence rails to the posts;

e. There was no indication of the solid portion of the fence required to discourage climbing; and

f. There were no fence material specifications provided.

PEO retained Harbourside Engineering Consultants (“Harbourside”) to review the actions and conduct of Shaw and LKS. Harbourside provided an independent expert report signed and sealed by Daniel Grant, P.Eng., on June 21, 2023, in connection with this review (the “Report”). The Report concluded, among other things, that Shaw and LKS failed to meet the standard expected of a reasonable and prudent engineer. Attached hereto as Schedule “A” is a copy of the Report.
For the purposes of these proceedings, Shaw and LKS accept as correct the findings, opinions and conclusions contained in the Report. Shaw and LKS admit that they failed to make responsible provision for complying with applicable codes in connection with the project, and that they failed to meet the standard expected of a reasonable and prudent engineer in the circumstances.
Shaw accepted additional fees from the complainant to revise the drawings but did not provide revised drawings as agreed.
Following receipt of the complaint, PEO commenced an investigation into Shaw and LKS’s conduct. Shaw failed to cooperate with PEO’s investigation, in that she failed to provide meaningful and timely responses to PEO’s queries.
By reason of the aforesaid, the parties agree that Shaw and LKS are guilty of professional misconduct as follows:

a. Negligence, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by sections 72(1) and 72(2)(a) of Regulation 941;

b. Failure to make responsible provision for complying with applicable codes in connection with work being undertaken by the practitioner, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(d) of Regulation 941; and

c. Conduct relevant to the practice of professional engineering that would reasonably be regarded as unprofessional, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941.

It is further agreed that LKS is guilty of professional misconduct as follows:

a. Failure to disclose its insurance status and obtain written authorization from its client, the complainant, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(g) of Regulation 941.

Shaw and LKS have had independent legal advice, or have had the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice, with respect to their agreement as to the facts, as set out above.

Relevant Sections re Misconduct in Regulation 941

The Sections cited in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the ASF in respect of Ms. Shaw and LKS’s professional misconduct are Section 72(1) and 72(2)(a) of Regulation 941, Section 72(2)(d) of Regulation 941 and 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941 of the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28 (the “Act”). In addition, the ASF stated that LKS is guilty of professional misconduct as per Section 72(2)(g) of Regulation 941 of the Act.
The relevant Sections in paragraphs 15 of the ASF are below:

Subsection 72(1) and 72(2)(a) of Regulation 941 state -

(1) In this section,

“negligence” means an act or an omission in the carrying out of the work of a practitioner that constitutes a failure to maintain the standards that a reasonable and prudent practitioner would maintain in the circumstances.

(2) For the purposes of the Act and this Regulation,

“professional misconduct” means,

(a) negligence,

Section 72(2)(d) of Regulation 941 states –

(2) For the purposes of the Act and this Regulation,

“professional misconduct” means,

(d) failure to make responsible provision for complying with applicable statutes, regulations, standards, codes, by-laws and rules in connection with work being undertaken by or under the responsibility of the practitioner,

Subsection 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941 states -

(2) For the purposes of the Act and this Regulation,

“professional misconduct” means,

(j) conduct or an act relevant to the practice of professional engineering that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by the engineering profession as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, [emphasis added]

As per paragraph 15 of the ASF, the parties were only seeking a finding that the conduct of Ms. Shaw and LKS was “unprofessional” pursuant to Section 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941 and not “disgraceful” and “dishonourable” pursuant to Section 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941.
The relevant Section in paragraph 16 of the ASF – i.e. Section 72(2)(g) of Regulation 941 - is as follows:

(2) For the purposes of the Act and this Regulation,

“professional misconduct” means,

(g) breach of the Act or regulations, other than an action that is solely a breach of the code of ethics,

Plea by Ms. Shaw and LKS

Ms. Shaw and LKS admitted to all of the facts set out above in the ASF and pled guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct therein. The Panel conducted a plea inquiry and was satisfied that Ms. Shaw and LKS’s admissions were voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

Decision regarding the ASF

The Panel considered the ASF and determined that the facts support the findings of professional misconduct set out therein and, in particular, found that based on the evidence, Ms. Shaw and LKS committed the acts of professional misconduct as set out in it. With respect to the allegations regarding Section 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941, the Panel found that Ms. Shaw and LKS were “unprofessional” as was sought by the parties, as noted above. The Panel made no finding with respect to whether Ms. Shaw and LKS’s conduct was “disgraceful” or “dishonourable”.
In reaching this decision, the Panel considered the Harbourside Engineering Consultants Report (“Harbourside Report”), prepared by an independent expert retained by PEO and accepted as correct by Shaw and LKS for purposes of these proceedings. In particular, the Panel noted that the Harbourside Report concluded that Shaw and LKS failed to meet the standard of a reasonable and prudent engineer. Shaw and LKS admitted that they failed to make responsible provision for complying with applicable codes in connection with the project, and that they failed to meet the standard expected of a reasonable and prudent engineer in the circumstances, as per the Harbourside Report.

Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs

The Parties advised the Panel that a JSP had been agreed upon in this matter. The JSP was dated September 27, 2024. The relevant parts of the JSP, taken directly from the JSP, are as follows:
Ludmila (Lucy) Shaw, P.Eng. (“Shaw”), was at all material times a Member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”). LKS Consulting Inc. (“LKS”) was at all material times the Holder of a Certificate of Authorization issued by the PEO.
Shaw and LKS are the subject of a proceeding before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the PEO pursuant to section 28 of the Act.
On September 11, 2024, the Registration Committee ordered that Shaw’s licence and LKS’s Certificate of Authorization be suspended for a period of 6 (six) months, or until Shaw passes the National Professional Practice Examination, whichever comes last.
The PEO, Shaw and LKS make the following joint submission on penalty and costs:

a) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(f) of the Act, Shaw and LKS shall be reprimanded, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register permanently;

b) The findings and order of the Discipline Committee shall be published in summary form under ss. 28(4)(i) of the Act, together with the names of the Member and the Holder;

c) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(d) and/or s. 28(4)(e) of the Act, it shall be a term, condition or restriction on Shaw’s licence and LKS’s Certificate of Authorization that, upon resuming practice following the suspension referred to above, they shall be prohibited from practicing professional engineering except under the direct supervision of another professional engineer approved by the Registrar who shall take responsibility for the work; and that other professional engineer shall: (i) sign and affix his or her seal to every final drawing, specification, plan, or other document sealed by Shaw or issued by LKS (“Document(s)”); or (ii) sign and affix his or her seal to a letter that shall be attached to, and shall be referred to in, all Document(s), which letter shall confirm that the other professional engineer has directly supervised and takes responsibility for the Document(s);

d) If Shaw demonstrates her competence in structural engineering by successfully passing the following examinations administered by PEO, namely,

(i) 07-Str-A4 (Advanced Structural Analysis), and

(ii) 07-Str-A5 (Advanced Structural Design),

the term, condition or restriction set out in subparagraph c) above shall be lifted in connection with structural engineering;

e) If Shaw demonstrates her competence in environmental engineering by successfully passing the following examination administered by PEO, namely, 18-Env-A4 (Water and Wastewater Engineering), the term, condition or restriction set out in subparagraph c) above shall be lifted in connection with environmental engineering;

f) If Shaw successfully completes all the examinations listed in subparagraphs d) and e) above, the term, condition or restriction set out in subparagraph c) above shall be suspended indefinitely;

g) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(e)(iii) of the Act, there shall be a condition imposed upon Shaw’s licence and LKS’s Certificate of Authorization, requiring them to accept practice inspections as directed by the Registrar in respect of conduct which occurs after the conclusion of the suspension referred to in paragraph 3, above; and

h) There shall be no order as to costs.

Shaw and LKS have had independent legal advice, or have had the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice, with respect to the penalty set out above.

Caselaw

The Panel carefully considered the JSP. Counsel for the Association provided caselaw, which she stated was not “on all fours” with the present case but showed the application of various elements of the penalties agreed to in the present case (Etches et al. v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, dated April 16, 2024 and Elgendui et al. v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, dated August 11, 2021). In addition, counsel for the Association presented caselaw regarding the high threshold that discipline panels must meet if they decide to reject a JSP, including the case Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (“Bradley”). Bradley, in turn, cited the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 (“Anthony-Cook”). Bradley stated the following at paragraph 14:

The public interest test in Anthony-Cook applies to disciplinary bodies. Any disciplinary body that rejects a joint submission on penalty must apply the public interest test and must show why the proposed penalty is so “unhinged” from the circumstances of the case that it must be rejected. In this case, the Discipline Committee clearly misunderstood the stringent public interest test, and impermissibly replaced the proposed penalty with its own view of a more fit penalty. This was an error, and we agree with the parties that the appeal should be allowed. [emphasis added]

In Anthony-Cook, the Supreme Court of Canada also stated the following, at paragraph 34:

…a joint submission should not be rejected lightly…Rejection denotes a submission so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down. This is an undeniably high threshold… [emphasis added]

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

Counsel for the Association stated that there are aggravating and mitigating factors in this matter. Aggravating factors include Ms. Shaw and LKS’s significant history with the Discipline Committee and the Registration Committee, including suspensions, licence restrictions and reprimands. The Panel considers this to be a very significant aggravating factor.
The Panel finds that other aggravating factors include Ms. Shaw and LKS’s actions of preparing drawings based on information provided by the complainant without independently verifying the information, accepting additional fees from the complainant to revise drawings but never providing the revised drawings as agreed upon and failing to cooperate with PEO’s investigation.
Mitigating factors include Ms. Shaw and LKS’s actions of agreeing to the ASF and JSP. Another mitigating factor is that Ms. Shaw indicated her intention to come into compliance with the Association’s requirements, which are set out in the penalty in the JSP.
The Panel concludes that the aggravating factors in this matter, including Ms. Shaw and LKS’s substantial history with the Discipline Committee and the Registration Committee, significantly outweigh the mitigating factors.

Brief Submissions re JSP and by Shaw and LKS’s Representative

Ms. Shaw and LKS’s representative made brief submissions, stating that guilty pleas would be much rarer if there was significant uncertainty as to whether hearing panels would accept them. She reiterated that Ms. Shaw and LKS have agreed to inspections going forward and stated that the JSP adequately addresses safety and deterrence issues.
Both counsel for PEO and the representative of Shaw and LKS agreed that the JSP is fair and appropriate.

Panel’s Conclusion

The Panel concluded that the proposed penalty is reasonable and in the public interest. While Ms. Shaw’s actions in this matter culminated in this hearing, the Panel notes Ms. Shaw’s cooperation with the Association by negotiating the ASF and JSP. By agreeing to the facts and a proposed penalty, Ms. Shaw has also avoided the necessity for a contested hearing, which would be of a longer duration than the hearing that was conducted.
The Panel also took into consideration the decision of the Registration Committee suspending Ms. Shaw for six months or until she passes the NPPE, whichever is later. We found that the public is sufficiently protected with the combination of Ms. Shaw’s suspension and the terms proposed in the JSP.
As noted below, the Panel administered a reprimand to Ms. Shaw and LKS, in the public forum of the hearing, at the end of the hearing, on October 7, 2024. The text of the reprimand is attached as Schedule “A” hereto.
The Panel notes that but for the ASF and JSP the Panel would have considered a much more significant penalty than the one that was ordered.

Penalty Decision

The Panel accepts the penalty in the JSP as appropriate, and accordingly orders:

a) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(f) of the Act, Shaw and LKS shall be reprimanded, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register permanently. The Panel delivered the reprimand in the hearing’s public setting, at the end of the hearing, on October 7, 2024.

b) The findings and order of the Discipline Committee shall be published in summary form under ss. 28(4)(i) of the Act, together with the names of the Member and the Holder;

c) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(d) and/or s. 28(4)(e) of the Act, it shall be a term, condition or restriction on Shaw’s licence and LKS’s Certificate of Authorization that, upon resuming practice following the suspension referred to [in the JSP], they shall be prohibited from practicing professional engineering except under the direct supervision of another professional engineer approved by the Registrar who shall take responsibility for the work; and that other professional engineer shall: (i) sign and affix his or her seal to every final drawing, specification, plan, or other document sealed by Shaw or issued by LKS (“Document(s)”); or (ii) sign and affix his or her seal to a letter that shall be attached to, and shall be referred to in, all Document(s), which letter shall confirm that the other professional engineer has directly supervised and takes responsibility for the Document(s);

d) If Shaw demonstrates her competence in structural engineering by successfully passing the following examinations administered by PEO, namely,

(i) 07-Str-A4 (Advanced Structural Analysis), and

(iii) 07-Str-A5 (Advanced Structural Design),

the term, condition or restriction set out in subparagraph c) above shall be lifted in connection with structural engineering;

f) If Shaw successfully completes all the examinations listed in subparagraphs d) and e) above, the term, condition or restriction set out in subparagraph c) above shall be suspended indefinitely;

h) There shall be no order as to costs.

Reprimand

As noted above, the Panel administered a reprimand to Ms. Shaw and LKS, in the public forum of the hearing at the end of the hearing, on October 7, 2024 and also attached the reprimand as Schedule “A” of this Decision and Reasons.

SCHEDULE “A”

REPRIMAND

Ludmila (Lucy) Shaw, P.Eng. and LKS Consulting Inc., as part of our penalty order this Discipline Panel has ordered that you be given a reprimand. The fact that you have received this reprimand will be included in the summary of the Panel’s decision, which will be published in accordance with the terms of its order. Panel members present here today are: myself (Alisa Chaplick, LL.B, LL.M), Paul Ballantyne, P.Eng. and Anthony Wing, P.Eng. I will administer the reprimand on behalf of the Panel. When we refer to you, we are including both yourself and LKS Consulting Inc.

The Panel has found that you have engaged in professional misconduct contrary to the Regulation 941 under the Professional Engineers Act. In particular, your conduct demonstrates the following:

negligence - amounting to professional misconduct as defined by sections 72(1) and 72(2)(a) of Regulation 941;
failure to make responsible provision for complying with applicable statutes, regulations, standards, codes, by-laws and rules in connection with work being undertaken by or under the responsibility of the practitioner - amounting to professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(d) of Regulation 941; and
conduct or an act relevant to the practice of professional engineering that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by the engineering profession as unprofessional, - amounting to professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941.

The Panel has also found that LKS Consulting Inc. failed to disclose its insurance status and obtain written authorization from its client, the complainant, to provide engineering services without that insurance, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(g) of Regulation 941.

In the matter before us, your conduct included the following:

Failing to meet the standards expected of a reasonable and prudent engineer in the circumstances;
Providing drawings that were not sufficient to serve as a structural design or record drawings and did not provide sufficient information to ensure that construction was in conformance with the minimum requirements of the Ontario Building Code;
Providing drawings without independently verifying the accuracy of the information provided by the client;
Accepting fees from the complainant without performing the agreed upon work;
Failing to cooperate with PEO’s investigation;
LKS Consulting Inc. failed to be insured against professional liability under a policy of professional liability insurance meeting the minimum requirements set out in Section 74(1) of Regulation 941; and
LKS Consulting Inc. failed to notify the complaint of its professional liability insurance status.

It is clear to the Panel, that you have not upheld your professional commitment to:

be a positive reflection of the profession;
conduct yourself in a manner that is reputable, professional and becoming of a professional engineer;
abide by the laws, rules, guidelines, and requirements expected of a professional engineer;
comply with the standards expected of the profession; and
demonstrate devotion to high ideals of personal and professional integrity.

Of particular concern to the Panel is that the professional misconduct in which you engaged has put at risk the public’s confidence in the profession and its ability to govern itself. This erodes the profile of this profession in the minds of the public and other regulated professionals.

Consequently, it is necessary for us to take steps to impress upon you the seriousness of the misconduct in which you have engaged. The Panel would like to remind you that being a professional engineer is a privilege and not a right. It is only because professional engineers agree to abide by rigorous standards of practice and ethical conduct that they have been granted this privilege.

By engaging in professional misconduct, you have brought discredit to the profession and to yourself. You have damaged your professional reputation and eroded the public trust that serves as the foundation of the profession. The result is that you have let down your clients, the public, your colleagues, the profession of engineering, and yourself.

The Panel is satisfied that by completing the penalty ordered you will be able to return to the profession and practice safely within the Province of Ontario.

We also want to make it clear that a greater penalty may have been imposed on you but for the Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs. We therefore caution you to comply with your professional obligations from this point forward.

This concludes the reprimand.