Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)
Indexed as: The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Odor, 2024 ONAPE 7
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 Peter Odor, P.Eng., a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.
BETWEEN:
The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)
-and-
Peter Odor, P.ENG.
PANEL MEMBERS: Glenn Richardson, P.Eng. CHAIR Aubrey Friedman, P.Eng. MEMBER Eric Bruce, J.D. MEMBER
Hearing Dates: 2024-07-23 Decision Date: 2024-08-13 Release of Written Reasons: 2024-08-13
Counsel: Leah Price and Justin Gattesco, Counsel for the Association (PEO) Peter Odor, Not present and not represented Jordan Glick, Independent Legal Counsel to the Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS
- The Panel of the Discipline Committee met to hear this matter on July 23, 2024, by means of an online video conference platform that was open to observers from the public. Counsel for the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (the “Association” or “PEO”) attended via videoconference. As discussed further below, Mr. Peter Odor, P.Eng. (the “Member” or “Odor”), was not in attendance and was not represented by legal counsel at the hearing.
The Allegations
The Panel was provided with the decision of the Complaints Committee dated November 6, 2023, with an appended Statement of Allegations dated November 2, 2023.
The Panel was also provided with a Notice of Hearing dated June 5, 2024, and an affidavit of electronic service on the Member dated July 23, 2024.
Preliminary Issue – the Non-Attendance of the Member
Counsel for PEO advised that it was their understanding that Odor would attend the hearing and that the matter would proceed by way of an Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) and a Joint Submission as to Penalty (“JSP”). However, Odor sent an email to Mr. Gattesco at 10:18 p.m. on July 22, 2024, the night before the hearing, in which he wrote the following: “I have scheduled job on 23-July, I will leave Toronto at 600am. I do not participate [sic] the hearing.” A copy of the email was provided to the Panel.
Counsel for PEO submitted that notwithstanding the non-attendance of the Member, the Panel ought to proceed with the matter using a modified procedure. As Mr. Odor was not present to enter a plea and conduct a plea inquiry, Counsel indicated that the Panel ought to enter a plea of not guilty. PEO would then rely on the content of the ASF as evidence at the proceeding. Counsel submitted that the Panel may rely on that evidence in considering whether PEO had met its burden of proving that Odor committed professional misconduct as alleged. Counsel referred the Panel to the decision of the Discipline Committee in PEO v. Suli Braunshtein, P.Eng. (“Braunshtein”), a decision dated March 26, 2010, reported in the September/October 2010 issue of the Gazette, which dealt with an analogous situation.
Having considered the affidavit of service, the email of Odor, the submissions of PEO and the Braunshtein decision, the Panel was satisfied that the Member had received adequate notice of the hearing, was aware that it was taking place on July 23, 2024 by videoconference and had chosen not to attend. The Panel further found that it was appropriate to proceed based on the modified procedure proposed by counsel for PEO and directed that the hearing proceed in the Member’s absence.
Plea by Member
- As the Member was not present at the hearing and was not represented by legal counsel, the Panel entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf.
Agreed Statement of Facts
Counsel for PEO advised that even though the Member had not attended at the hearing, he had previously reached agreement on the facts with the PEO and signed an Agreed Statement of Facts.
Counsel for PEO provided an Agreed Statement of Facts dated July 3, 2024, signed by both the Member and by a lawyer on behalf of PEO. Counsel for PEO advised that the document had been signed by the Member at the offices of the PEO, and his signature had been witnessed by Mr. Michael Rusek, Director of Investigations and Prosecutions for PEO. Counsel noted that Mr. Rusek was available to testify as to the authenticity of the signature of the Member if requested by the Panel. The Panel did not feel that it was necessary to hear from Mr. Rusek