Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Wong et al, 2025 ONAPE 3

Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)

Date: 2025-04-10

Citation: Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Wong et al, 2025 ONAPE 3

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO (PEO)

Indexed as: The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Wong et al, 2025 ONAPE 3

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 Bing Hung Edward Wong, P.Eng., member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, and Edward Wong & Associates Inc., a holder of a Certificate of Authorization.

BETWEEN:

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)

-and-

Bing Hung Edward Wong, P.ENG. and Edward Wong & Associates Inc.

PANEL MEMBERS: Eric Bruce, J.D. CHAIR Jag Mohan, P.Eng. MEMBER Michael Rosenblitt, P.Eng. MEMBER

Hearing Dates: 2025-04-07

Decision Date: 2025-04-10

Release of Written Reasons: 2025-04-10

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

NAME OF LAWYER Stephen Libin, Counsel for Bing Hung Edward Wong, P.Eng. (Licence Holder) and Edward Wong & Associates (Certificate of Authorization Holder)

NAME OF LAWYER Jordan Stone, Independent Legal Counsel to the Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS

1The Panel of the Discipline Committee met to hear this matter on April 7, 2025, by means of an online video conference platform that was open to observers. All participants in the proceedings attended via videoconference, including counsel for the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”), Mr. Bing Hung Edward Wong, P.Eng. (“Wong”), and legal counsel for Wong and Edward Wong & Associates Inc. (“EWAI”).

The Allegations

2The Panel was provided with a Notice of Hearing dated February 13, 2025, including a Statement of Allegations dated August 20, 2024.

3The Panel notes that the allegation contained in paragraph 14(c) of the Statement of Allegations (Failing to sign, date or seal an engineering document in contravention of section 53, under section 72(2)(e) of Regulation 941) was withdrawn by PEO during the course of the hearing.

Agreed Statement of Facts

4Counsel for PEO advised the Panel that the parties had reached agreement on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts signed by Wong and EWAI on March 28, 2025, and countersigned by counsel for PEO on March 31, 2025. The Agreed Statement of Facts provided as follows, with schedules omitted:

1. At all material times, Wong was a professional engineer licenced pursuant to the Act. Wong was first licenced in 1989 and has practiced continuously as a professional engineer since that time. He has not previously been referred to the Discipline Committee.

2. At all material times, EWAI held a Certificate of Authorization (“C of A”) naming Wong as the individual accepting professional responsibility for engineering services provided under the C of A. EWAI has not previously been referred to the Discipline Committee.

3. On or around July 6, 2022, Como Demolition and Excavation (“CDE”) retained Wong and/or EWAI to complete work relating to soil excavation from a residential construction site at 6 Bluejay Place, Toronto, Ontario (the “Site”). In particular, Wong and/or EWAI were retained to obtain soil samples, arrange for chemical testing of the samples, and provide a report on the results of the testing.

4. On or around July 6, 2022, Wong attended the Site and collected four soil samples: BJP1, BJP2, BJP3 and BJP4. Wong submitted the samples to Bureau Veritas Laboratories (“BVL”) for testing.

5. On or around July 15, 2022, BVL issued a soil chemical certificate of analysis reporting on the results of testing conducted on samples BJP1, BJP2, BJP3 and BJP4 (“BVL Report 1”). BVL Report 1 indicated that an “exceedance of acid extractable arsenic levels” were noted for samples BJP3 and BJP4. Attached hereto as Schedule “A” is a copy of BVL Report 1.

6. On or around July 22, 2022, Wong re-attended the Site at CDE’s request to take new samples from a different location within the excavation boundary. Wong took samples BP3 and BP4 from soil extracted by a backhoe from within the excavation zone. Samples BP3 and BP4 were taken at a different location and a different depth than samples BJP3 and BJP4.

7. During his site visits, Wong did not take photos, nor did he take field measurements or complete horizontal or vertical surveying for the sampling locations.

8. Wong provided samples BP3 and BP4 to BVL for testing. On or around August 3, 2022, BVL issued a soil chemical certificate of analysis to EWAI reporting the results of testing on BP3 and BP4 (“BVL Report 2”). There was no excessive arsenic noted for these samples.

9. On or around August 4, 2022, at Wong’s request, BVL issued another certificate of analysis for samples BJP1 and BJP2, without also reporting the results from BJP3 and BJP4 (“BVL Report 3”).

10. On or around August 4, 2022, EWAI issued a report signed by Wong entitled “Results of Chemical Analysis, 6 Blue Jay Place, Toronto, Ontario” (the “EWAI Report”). Attached hereto as Schedule “B” is a copy of the EWAI Report.

11. The EWAI Report was deficient in that it:

a. Failed to address samples BJP3 and BJP4 or provide a rationale for excluding the test results for BJP3 and BJP4;

b. Failed to include the locations where samples BJP3 and BJP4 were taken; and

c. Failed to include any test pit or sample logs providing a description of the soil tested.

12. Appended to the EWAI Report was a copy of BVL Report 2. Soil samples BJP3 and BJP4 were crossed off the list of analysed samples.

13. CDE provided the EWAI Report to Carolyn Adams, P.Eng. (“Adams”), Environmental Director of United Soils Management, in support of CDE’s request to dispose of excess soil from the Site at a United Soils Management location. At all times, Adams had the soil analysis for all the samples taken from the Site. United Soils refused to accept the soil.

14. Adams filed a complaint with PEO on February 3, 2023. Attached as Schedule “C” is a copy of the complaint, exclusive of attachments.

15. PEO retained Grounded Engineering to provide an independent expert opinion. Grounded Engineering provided a report dated March 1, 2024, signed and sealed by Freesia Waxman, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., QP(ESA) and David MacGillivray, P.Geo., QP(ESA/RA) (the “Expert Report”). The Expert Report concluded, among other things, that Wong “failed to be aware of, consider, or comply with the MECP Excess Soil Best Management Practice guidelines or industry standards”, and that the EWAI Report “and all work by Edward Wong and EWAI did not meet the standard of care of a reasonable and prudent engineer in the Province of Ontario”. The Expert Report also states: “It is unlikely that there was a potential public safety impact as a result of Edward Wong and/or EWAI’s failure to comply with industry standard practices” and that BJP3 and BJP4 only indicated “marginal exceedances” of a possibly “naturally occurring” substance in a “relatively small volume of soil”. Attached as Schedule “D” is a redacted copy of the Expert Report.

16. For the purposes of these proceedings, the Respondents accept as correct the findings, opinions and conclusions contained in the Expert Report, as redacted. The Respondents admit that they failed to make responsible provision for complying with applicable standards, and that they failed to maintain the standards that a reasonable and prudent practitioner would maintain in the circumstances with respect to the soil sampling process referred to above and the preparation of the EWAI Report.

17. By reason of the aforesaid, the parties agree that Wong and EWAI 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. Failing 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 under section 72(2)(d) of Regulation 941;

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.

Plea by Member and/or Holder

5On behalf of himself and EWAI, Wong admitted the acts of professional misconduct set out in paragraphs 17(a) to 17(c) of the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Panel conducted a plea inquiry and was satisfied that Wong’s admission was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal.

Decision

6The Panel considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and finds that the facts, as agreed, support findings of professional misconduct. In particular, it finds that Wong and EWAI committed acts of professional misconduct as set out in paragraphs 17(a) to 17(c) of the Agreed Statement of Facts, above.

Reasons for Decision

7When presented with a guilty plea and an Agreed Statement of Facts, the Panel must still satisfy itself whether the facts presented support a finding with respect to each of the acts of professional misconduct alleged by PEO.

8In this case, the Panel is of the view that the allegations of professional misconduct admitted to in paragraphs 17(a) to 17(c) of the Agreed Statement of Facts were clearly made out on the facts agreed to by Wong and EWAI and accepted by the Panel.

9With respect to the allegation that Wong and EWAI were negligent, the Panel notes that subsection 72(1) of the Regulation defines negligence as “an act or 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.”

1010. The Panel accepts the conclusions of the Expert Report provided by Grounded Engineering that Wong and EWAI “did not meet the standard of care of a reasonable and prudent engineer in the Province of Ontario” with respect to the soil sampling process and the preparation of their report in this case. Specifically, the Panel notes that Wong and EWAI failed to address in their report two samples that showed elevated levels of arsenic, including where the samples were taken, or to provide a rationale for why the test results for these samples were excluded from the report. As noted by the Expert Report, “[i]f elevated concentrations of arsenic were identified at the Site, a prudent engineer would have completed subsequent sampling at the same elevation to horizontally delineate any elevated arsenic concentrations within the surficial soil that may have extended into the area of elevation.” Such additional investigations would have been documented and explained as part of the final report.

11Moreover, as noted by the Expert Report, Wong and EWAI failed to include any test pit or sample logs providing a description of the soil tested, which would be expected of a prudent engineer in this type of soil sampling process.

12Regarding the allegation that Wong and EWAI failed to make responsible provision for complying with applicable statutes, regulations, standards, codes, bylaws and rules, the Panel accepts the conclusions of the Expert Report that Wong and EWAI failed to “be aware of, consider, or comply with the MECP [Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks] Excess Soil Best Management Practice guidelines or industry standards.” In particular, the Panel notes that these guidelines state that all past environmental site assessment information should be made available upon request, but as noted above, the results of the two samples were not addressed in Wong and EWAI’s report. Moreover, Wong and EWAI did not take actions in accordance with expected industry standards to delineate the scope of the arsenic or to appropriately log the locations of the samples taken.

13Finally, the Panel accepts that all of the above deficiencies with respect to Wong and EWAI’s conduct of the soil sampling project and their final report supports a conclusion that their conduct would be regarded as unprofessional by members of the engineering profession.

Penalty

14Counsel for PEO advised the Panel that a Joint Submission as to Penalty and Costs had been agreed upon. The Joint Submission as to Penalty and Costs provided, in part, as follows:

3. The PEO, Wong and EWAI make the following joint submissions on penalty and costs:

a) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(f) of the Act, Wong and EWAI shall both be reprimanded, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register for an unlimited period of time;

b) Pursuant to section 28(4)(b) of the Act, Wong’s licence and EWAI’s certificate of authorization shall both be suspended for a period of one (1) week, commencing upon pronouncement of the Discipline Committee’s penalty decision (the “Date”);

c) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(d) of the Act, the following terms and conditions shall be placed on Wong’s licence and EWAI’s certificate of authorization:

(i) Wong shall successfully complete the National Professional Practice examination (the “NPPE”) within six (6) months after the Date; and

(ii) Wong shall successfully complete the Geotechnical & Hydrogeological Engineering (18-Env-A3/07-WRSE-A3) exam (the “GHE Exam”), within twelve (12) months after the Date;

d) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(e) and (k) of the Act, a restriction shall be imposed upon Wong’s licence and EWAI’s certificate of authorization prohibiting Wong from practicing professional engineering except under the direct supervision of another professional engineer acceptable to the Registrar, who shall take professional responsibility for the work by affixing his or her signature and seal on every final drawing, report, or other document prepared or sealed by Wong, which restriction shall be suspended for the period set out in subsection (c)(i) in the case of the NPPE, and the period set out in (c)(ii) in the case of the GHE Exam. Upon successful completion of the NPPE, the restriction in connection with that examination shall be lifted. Upon successful completion of the GHE Exam, the restriction in connection with that examination shall be lifted;

e) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(i) and 28(5) of the Act, the findings and order of the Discipline Committee shall be published, with reference to names; and

f) There shall be no order with respect to costs.

15Counsel for PEO submitted that the Panel had jurisdiction to order all of the elements of the proposed penalty and that it served all of the principles and objectives of penalty orders. In particular, counsel for PEO submitted the following:

• The reprimand and publication of the Panel’s decision with reference to names served as both a general and specific deterrent, as well as helped to maintain the public’s confidence in the regulation of the profession;
• The suspension of Wong’s licence and EWAI’s Certificate of Authorization served to protect the public and acted as both a general and specific deterrent; and
• The requirement to complete two examinations served a remedial purpose and protected the public, and that this was supported by the requirement for oversight by another professional engineer should the required exams not be completed within the specified timeframes. Counsel for PEO referred to previous cases in which a suspended imposition of practice oversight had been ordered; he submitted that this type of order was within the Panel’s jurisdiction.

16Counsel for PEO referred the Panel to two cases of the Discipline Committee (PEO v. De Rose dated March 19, 2014; PEO v. Vickerman dated February 29, 2024), which he submitted resulted in similar outcomes. He argued that the proposed penalty was therefore with a reasonable range of penalties imposed in similar, if not identical, circumstances.

17Counsel for Wong and EWAI submitted that they did not challenge that their report fell below industry standards in the manner alleged. However, counsel asserted that there was no evidence before the Panel to conclude that Wong or EWAI had in any way misled or attempted to deceive the potential soil receiving site. He described the deficiencies in the report as the result of a technical error, rather than any duplicity or ethical concerns. He further pointed out that the Expert Report concluded that there had been no risk to public safety as a result of the deficiencies.

Penalty Decision

18The Panel accepts the Joint Submission as to Penalty and Costs and orders as follows:

1. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(f) of the Act, Wong and EWAI shall both be reprimanded, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register for an unlimited period of time;
2. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(b) of the Act, Wong’s licence and EWAI’s certificate of authorization shall both be suspended for a period of one (1) week, commencing upon pronouncement of the Discipline Committee’s penalty decision (the “Date”);
3. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(d) of the Act, the following terms and conditions shall be placed on Wong’s licence and EWAI’s certificate of authorization: a. Wong shall successfully complete the National Professional Practice examination (the “NPPE”) within six (6) months after the Date; and b. Wong shall successfully complete the Geotechnical & Hydrogeological Engineering (18-Env-A3/07-WRSE-A3) exam (the “GHE Exam”), within twelve (12) months after the Date;
4. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(e) and (k) of the Act, a restriction shall be imposed upon Wong’s licence and EWAI’s certificate of authorization prohibiting Wong from practising professional engineering except under the direct supervision of another professional engineer acceptable to the Registrar, who shall take professional responsibility for the work by affixing his or her signature and seal on every final drawing, report, or other document prepared or sealed by Wong, which restriction shall be suspended for the period set out in subsection (c)(i) in the case of the NPPE, and the period set out in (c)(ii) in the case of the GHE Exam. Upon successful completion of the NPPE, the restriction in connection with that examination shall be lifted. Upon successful completion of the GHE Exam, the restriction in connection with that examination shall be lifted; and
5. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(i) and 28(5) of the Act, the findings and order of the Discipline Committee shall be published, with reference to names.

Reasons for Penalty Decision

19The Panel carefully considered the Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs. It is a well-established principle of law that a disciplinary panel should not interfere with a joint submission on penalty except where the panel is of the view that to accept the joint submission would bring the administration of the disciplinary process into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest (Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303).

20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty protects the public and serves the principles of general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, and maintenance of the public’s confidence in the profession.

21Delivering a reprimand and publishing the Panel’s findings with reference to names deters both Wong and EWAI from reoffending and the profession as a whole from engaging in similar conduct. The imposition of a suspension likewise supports these aims.

22The requirement to complete two examinations targeted to the circumstances of this case support remediation and rehabilitation. The Panel is satisfied that the examinations will provide Wong with an opportunity to reflect on his misconduct, and impress upon him the importance of complying with applicable standards and guidelines in his future practice. Further, imposing a requirement of supervision on Wong and EWAI, but suspending the coming into force of that penalty unless Wong is unsuccessful at completing the examinations within the prescribed timeframes, acts as an additional safeguard for the public.

23The Panel notes that Wong and EWAI’s co-operation with PEO through the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty demonstrates that he has accepted responsibility for his actions and has avoided unnecessary expense to PEO for a contested hearing. The Panel considers this evidence of Wong’s insight and his steps towards rehabilitation, which will be supplemented by the requirement that he complete the two specified examinations. These examinations will provide an opportunity for Wong to upgrade his skills and to demonstrate that his practice aligns with the standards of the profession.

24The Panel considered it a mitigating factor that the levels of arsenic in the two impugned samples showed only marginal exceedances of prescribed limits, may have been attributable to a naturally occurring source, and ultimately posed no risk to the public.

25The Panel also points out that in reviewing the proposed penalty, it took into consideration that there was no evidence or admissions before it to suggest that the arsenic findings were being deliberately withheld for an improper purpose. Had there been evidence before the Panel of deception or unethical conduct, its views on the adequacy of the penalty may have been different.