Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Iondov, 2025 ONAPE 4

Date: 2025-07-31

Citation: Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Iondov, 2025 ONAPE 4

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

Indexed as: The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Iondov, 2025 ONAPE 4

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 Gueorgui (George) Iondov, P.Eng., a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

BETWEEN:

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)

-and-

Gueorgui (George) Iondov, P.Eng.

PANEL MEMBERS: Albert Sweetnam, P.Eng. CHAIR

Maureen Helt, LL.B. MEMBER

Gary Thompson, P.Eng. MEMBER

Hearing Dates: 2025-07-14

Decision Date: 2025-07-31

Release of Written: 2025-07-31

Reasons:

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

NAME OF LAWYER Gueorgui (George) Iondov, Self-represented

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

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

1. This matter was heard by a Panel of the Discipline Committee of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”) on July 14, 2025, electronically by way of videoconference pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, the Professional Engineers Act, and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Allegations

2. The Panel was provided with a Notice of Hearing dated May 28, 2025, with an attached Statement of Allegations dated December 10, 2024.

Agreed Statement of Facts

3. Counsel for PEO advised the Panel that agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) with attached Schedules A to E, marked as Exhibit 4, and signed by Mr. Iondov and countersigned by counsel for PEO on June 25, 2025. The ASF provides as follows, with schedules omitted: At all material times, Iondov was a professional engineer licensed pursuant to the Act.

4. Iondov was licensed pursuant to the Act from July 17, 2012, until December 14, 2023, when his license was cancelled due to non-payment of fees. Iondov holds a Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering from Toronto Metropolitan University. At the time of the events leading to the matters in issue, Iondov was a principal and the acting President of Urban Steel Products Inc. (“USP”).

5. The Complainant, Agnes Maing, and her husband (together, the “Homeowners”) were the owners of a new, custom-designed single-family dwelling under construction at 97 36th Street North, Wasaga Beach, Ontario (the “Project”).

6. The Homeowners retained Lines Construction Management Inc. (“Lines”) as the general contractor for the Project. Lines in turn retained USP in or about May 3-4, 2022, to provide railing systems for an elevated exterior front deck and an interior stairway (the “Railing Systems”), based on a written conceptual design description, without any further diagram or plans.

7. Both the conceptual design description provided to USP, and the architectural and structural plans submitted to the Town of Wasaga Beach (“Town”) for a building permit for the Project required the Railing Systems to comply with applicable terms of the Ontario Building Code (“OBC”), being ss. 9.8.8.1 (Required Guards), 9.8.8.2 (Loads on Guards), 9,8.8.3 (Height of Guards) and 9.8.8.7 (Tempered Glass), in the version of the OBC dated 2012, as revised in 2022.

8. After an occupancy inspection by a building inspector for the Town, which took place on October 6, 2022, a dispute arose among the Homeowners, Lines and USP, as to whether the design of the Railing Systems used by USB complied with applicable provisions of the OBC.

9. In the context of that dispute, Iondov signed a cover letter dated November 25, 2022, identifying himself as a P.Eng. (the “Cover Letter”), in which he stated that he had assessed provided documentation detailing USP’s design for the Railing Systems, and certified that such design complied with applicable OBC requirements. The Cover Letter was provided to the Homeowners, Lines and USP, together with a copy of USP’s design drawing EXTSSGL1.5, which copy had been stamped with Iondov’s P.Eng. seal, and signed by him, with the date November 30, 2022 (the “Design Drawing”). Attached as Schedule “A” is a copy of the Cover Letter. Attached as Schedule “B” are copies of the Design Drawing.

10. In fact, certain design elements shown in the Design Drawing were structurally inadequate and did not comply with applicable OBC requirements. Specifically:

i. the top rail, the post, the sleeve connecting the post to its base plate, and the related anchorage, as specified in the Design Drawing, were each structurally inadequate, in that they provided less than the strengths required for the loads for Guards and Railings by ss. 9.8.8.1 (Required Guards), 9.8.8.2 (Loads on Guards), 9,8.8.3 (Height of Guards) of the OBC; and

ii. if the top rail was only decorative, then the tempered glass provided less than the strength required for the loads by the CAN/CGSB 12.1-M90 standard required by s. 9.8.8.7 (Tempered Glass).

8. USP’s design drawing EXTSSGL1.5 was prepared by Iondov at some time before USP was retained in connection with the Project. Iondov did not prepare or check any calculations of the strengths, or of the required loads, related to the design elements shown therein, before applying his P.Eng seal to the Design Drawing, and signing both the sealed Design Drawing and the Cover Letter.

9. In or around May 2023, the Homeowners submitted a complaint to PEO. Attached as Schedule “C” is a copy of the Complaint Form.

10. PEO retained Steven Adema, P.Eng. to review the actions and conduct of Iondov. He prepared a report (the “Tacoma Report”) dated March 6, 2024. He prepared an addendum to his report (the “Tacoma Addendum Report”) dated April 16, 2024. The Reports concluded, among other things, that the rail, post, post sleeve and anchorage were all structurally inadequate. Attached as Schedule “D” is a copy of the Tacoma Report. Attached as Schedule “E” is a copy of the Tacoma Addendum Report.

11. For the purposes of these proceedings, Iondov accepts as correct the findings, opinions and conclusions contained in the Tacoma Report and the Tacoma Addendum Report. Iondov admits that he failed to make reasonable provision for the safeguarding of the public, that he failed to make responsible provision for complying with applicable standards and codes, and that he failed to maintain the standards that a reasonable and prudent practitioner would maintain in the circumstances.

12. By reason of the aforesaid, the parties agree that Iondov is guilty of professional misconduct as follows:

i. Negligence in the preparation and circulation of the Cover Letter and the Design Drawing in or about November 25-30, 2022, amounting to professional misconduct as defined in section 72(2)(a) of Regulation 941;

ii. Failing to make reasonable provision for the safeguarding of the life, health and property of persons, including the Homeowners and others who might subsequently visit the Property and use the Railing Systems, amounting to professional misconduct as defined in section 72(2)(b) of Regulation 941;

iii. Failing to make responsible provision for complying with the requirements of the OBC and of the CAN/CGSB 12.1-M90 standard applicable to the Railing Systems designs, amounting to professional misconduct as defined in section 72(2)(d) of Regulation 941; and

iv. 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 in section 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941.

13. Iondov has had independent legal advice or has had the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice, with respect to their agreement as to the facts, as set out above.

Plea by Member

4. Mr. Iondov admitted the allegations of professional misconduct set out in paragraph 13 (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Statement of Allegations and reproduced in paragraph 12 of the ASF. The panel conducted a plea inquiry and is satisfied that Mr. Iondov’s admissions are voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

Decision

5. The panel considered the ASF, together with Mr. Iondov’s admissions, and concludes that the facts and evidence support findings of professional misconduct, as alleged and admitted to. Specifically, the panel finds that Mr. Iondov committed acts of professional misconduct as defined by sections and 72(2)(a), (b), (d) and (j) of Regulation 941 under the Professional Engineers Act. With respect to section 72(2)(a) the panel finds that the conduct of Mr. Iondov would reasonably be regarded as unprofessional.

Reasons for Decision

6. The Panel retains jurisdiction in this matter despite the fact that Iondov is no longer a member of the Association. As per section 22.1 of the Professional Engineers Act, a “member who resigns or a holder of a […] certificate of authorization that is cancelled or revoked continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Association in respect of any professional misconduct or incompetence referable to a time when the person was a member or holder.” The Panel notes that at the time of the main events in question Iondov was a member of the Association.

7. The Panel recognizes that notwithstanding the admissions of Mr. Iondov, the evidence contained within the ASF must be sufficient for PEO to discharge its onus and prove each of the allegations of professional misconduct made by PEO on a balance of probabilities.

8. In this case, the Panel is of the view that the allegations of professional misconduct admitted to, are clearly made out on the facts agreed to by Iondov and accepted by the Panel.

9. In making this finding, the Panel accepts the conclusions of the Expert Report, dated March 6, 2024, and Addendum Report, dated April 16, 2024, provided by Tacoma Engineering. Specifically, the Panel accepts the following findings noted as a summary on the last page of the Addendum Report:

“In our opinion, Iondov failed to comply with design standards for guards as required by the OBC.

In our opinion, with the assumed yield strength, Iondov did not meet the expectation of a reasonable and prudent practitioner in this circumstance.

In our opinion, Iondov failed to meet the standard expected of a reasonable and prudent practitioner.

In our opinion, there are errors, omissions, or deficiencies that are involved in this project and there are impacts on public safety as a result. “

10. In accepting the ASF, the Panel noted its concern with respect to the admission made by Mr. Iondov in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts, namely that the design Mr. Iondov certified as meeting OBC standards, as set out in his Cover letter dated November 25, 2022, and attached as Schedule A to the ASF, was structurally inadequate. As this design was not prepared specifically for this project, the Panel is concerned that Iondov may have used it for other projects, thereby potentially putting members of the public at risk. Counsel for PEO gave an undertaking to seek instructions from her client as to whether PEO can address the Panel’s concerns and determine if the design has been used elsewhere and could be an ongoing danger to the public.

Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs

11. Counsel for PEO advised the Panel that a Joint Submission as to Penalty (JSP) had been agreed upon. The JSP provides as follows:

12. PEO and Iondov make the following joint submission on penalty and costs:

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

14. The findings and order of the Discipline Committee shall be published in summary form under s. 28(4)(i) of the Act, with reference to names;

15. Iondov is not currently a member of the Association but is entitled to seek reinstatement of his licence to practice as a professional engineer upon compliance with the requirements of Section 51.1 of Regulation 941. Therefore, if, as and when Iondov’s licence is reinstated, he shall be automatically subject to the following penalties:

i. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(b) of the Act, Iondov’s licence shall be suspended for a period of two (2) months;

ii. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(d) and/or s. 28(4)(e) of the Act, it shall be a term, condition, or restriction on Iondov’s licence that he shall be prohibited from providing structural engineering services;

iii. If Iondov demonstrates his competence in structural engineering by successfully passing the Elementary Structural Design (07-STR-A2/16-CIV-A2) examination, then the term, condition or restriction set out in subparagraph 3(c)(ii) above shall be lifted; and

4. There shall be no order as to costs.

Penalty Submissions

13. Counsel for PEO submitted that the panel has jurisdiction to order all of the elements of the proposed penalty and that it served all of the principles and objectives of penalty order. In particular, counsel for PEO submitted it satisfies the five purposes of a penalty:

14. Protection of the public;

15. Specific deterrence;

16. General deterrence;

17. Rehabilitation and Education; and,

18. Maintenance of the reputation of the profession in the eyes of the public.

19. In considering the elements of the JSP, Counsel for PEO submits that the reprimand and publication of the Panel’s decision with reference to names serves as both a general and specific deterrent as well as helps to maintain the public’s confidence in the regulation of the profession.

20. With respect to rehabilitation, Counsel for PEO noted that this is appliable should Iondov seek reinstatement as he will have to provide evidence of good character should he seek reinstatement. Further, Iondov is prohibited from practising structural engineering if reinstated, subject to him completing various educational requirements. This prohibition is directly related to the concern for structural safety and ensuring the public is protected.

21. In considering the appropriateness of the proposed penalty, counsel for PEO noted that the aggravating factor in this case is the extent of the errors made by Iondov and the exposure to risk created by his misconduct. Mitigating factors include that he cooperated throughout the investigation and this disciplinary process, it is his first offence, he took the matter seriously and accepted the allegations of misconduct.

22. Counsel for PEO submitted that the Panel must apply the test for assessing joint submissions as set out in Divisional Court’s decision in Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303. That decision affirmed the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. Counsel for PEO referred to paragraph 11 of the Bradley decision, which sets out the following:

11The Supreme Court went on to adopt a “public interest” test for rejecting a joint submission. Joint submissions on sentence are to be accepted “unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest” (para. 32). At para. 34, the Court emphasized that this is a very stringent test:

18. Counsel for PEO also referred to other prior decisions of the Discipline Committee as a basis for her submission that the penalty proposed in the JSP falls within a reasonable range of outcomes based on reasonable comparator cases. These cases include Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Karugu et al, 2024 ONAPE 8; Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Ulrich, 2023 ONAPE 4; and Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Shaw et al, 2022 ONAPE 5.

Penalty Decision

19. The panel accepts the JSP and accordingly orders:

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

21. The findings and order of the Discipline Committee shall be published in summary form under s. 28(4)(i) of the Act, with reference to names;

22. Iondov is not currently a member of the Association but is entitled to seek reinstatement of his licence to practise as a professional engineer upon compliance with the requirements of Section 51.1 of Regulation 941. Therefore, if, as and when Iondov’s licence is reinstated, he shall be automatically subject to the following penalties:

23. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(b) of the Act, Iondov’s licence shall be suspended for a period of two (2) months;

24. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(d) and/or s. 28(4)(e) of the Act, it shall be a term, condition, or restriction on Iondov’s licence that he shall be prohibited from providing structural engineering services;

25. If Iondov demonstrates his competence in structural engineering by successfully passing the Elementary Structural Design (07-STR-A2/16-CIV-A2) examination, then the term, condition or restriction set out in subparagraph 3(c)(ii) above shall be lifted; and

26. There shall be no order as to costs.

Reasons for Penalty and Decision

20. It is a well-established principle of law, as set out in Bradley, referred to above, 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. This is a stringent test, and a panel should only consider rejecting a joint submission where the proposal could be seen as “unhinged” from the circumstances of the case. In this case, the Panel finds the proposed penalty as reasonable.

21. Iondov is no longer a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario. Accordingly, he is neither engaged in the practice of professional engineering nor poses a present risk to the public. The Panel acknowledges, however, that Iondov is entitled to seek reinstatement of his licence, and that, depending on the time since his suspension for non-payment of fees, this may be a purely administrative process. In these circumstances, the Panel is of the view that if Iondov’s licence is ever reinstated, the requirement for additional terms of ensuring he does not practise structural engineering unless he satisfactorily demonstrates his competence through completion of educational requirements, appropriately protects the public and helps to maintain the public’s confidence in the profession.

22. The Panel issued the oral reprimand at the end of the hearing.