Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Aquino, 2026 ONAPE 1

Date: 2026-01-26

Citation: Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Aquino, 2026 ONAPE 1

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

Indexed as: The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Aquino, 2026 ONAPE 1

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 John Aquino, P.Eng., a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

BETWEEN:

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)

-and-

John Aquino, P.Eng.

PANEL MEMBERS: Glenn Richardson, P.Eng. CHAIR John Tyrrell, P.Eng. MEMBER Ayodele Akenroye, LL.B., Ph.D. PUBLIC MEMBER

Hearing Dates: 2025-11-24

Decision Date: 2026-01-26

Release of Written: 2026-01-26

Reasons:

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

NAME OF LAWYER John Aquino, Unrepresented

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

AMENDED DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

1. This matter was heard by a Panel of the Discipline Committee of Professional Engineers Ontario (“PEO”) on November 24, 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. All participants in the proceeding attended via videoconference, including counsel for PEO, Leah Price and Justin Gattesco and John Aquino (“Mr. Aquino”). Mr. Aquino was not represented at the proceeding.

The Allegations

2. The Panel was provided with a Notice of Hearing dated September 30, 2025, including a Statement of Allegations dated June 11, 2025.

3. PEO alleges in paragraph 12 of the Statement of Allegation that Mr. Aquino is guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in conduct relevant to the practice of professional engineering that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional under section 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941 of the Act.

Agreed Statement of Facts

4. 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 and B, dated September 25, 2025, signed by Mr. Aquino and countersigned by Counsel to PEO on October 16, 2025. The relevant parts of the ASF are as follows:

5. At all material times, Aquino was a professional engineer licenced pursuant to the Act. Aquino was first licenced in 1996. He has not previously been referred to the Discipline Committee.

6. Aquino was the president of two family-owned construction companies that worked on large-scale construction projects. The two companies were Bondfield Construction Company Limited (“BCCL”) and 1033803 Ontario Inc. o/a Forma-Con Construction (“Forma-Con”) a concrete forming business. BCCL and Forma-Con were a part of the Bondfield Group of Companies (“BGC”).

7. On or about April 3, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) granted BCCL’s application under the Companies’ Creditor Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), a statute that allows insolvent corporations owing their creditors more than $5 million to restructure their businesses and financial affairs. The court appointed Ernst & Young Inc. (“EY”) as Monitor of BCCL.

8. Forma-Con commenced bankruptcy proceedings, and, on or about December 19, 2019, KSV Restructuring Inc. (“KSV”) was appointed as the Trustee in bankruptcy of Forma-Con.

9. The Monitor and the Trustee discovered that BCCL and Forma-Con had illegitimately paid out tens of millions of dollars in a false invoicing scheme, over a number of years prior to the CCAA proceedings (the “False Invoicing Scheme”). The False Invoicing Scheme involved purported suppliers who delivered invoices to BCCL and Forma-Con, seeking payment for services or materials allegedly supplied on various projects. In fact, no such services or materials were ever provided. The invoices were approved and paid out by BCCL and Forma-Con under the supervision of Aquino.

10. The Monitor determined that the False Invoicing Scheme involved a set of transactions by which $21,806,693 was removed from BCCL through false invoices. The Trustee concluded that Forma-Con had paid out $11,366,890. Aquino benefited from the False Invoicing Scheme, since his holding corporation, 2304288 Ontario Inc. (“230”) received approximately $5,829,939 from the BCCL suppliers. 230 in turn paid out over $5,000,000 to Aquino personally. Aquino admits that no value had been provided by any of the suppliers identified by the Monitor and Trustee for any of the alleged services or materials underlying the false invoices.

11. Applications were brought by the Monitor and the Trustee under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”), seeking declarations that the transfers were void, and seeing orders requiring Aquino and the other respondents in the applications to repay the amounts improperly transferred.

12. Justice Dietrich of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered a decision on March 19, 2021, and found, among other things:

190I find that the badges of fraud in this case establish John Aquino’s intent to defraud, defeat or delay creditors.

192It is reasonable to infer that John Aquino took these actions to avoid BCCL’s and Forma-Con’s obligations and defeat their creditors. Neither he nor any of the other Respondents has given evidence of an alternative explanation.

197The totality of the evidence demonstrates a pattern of an intent by John Aquino, on behalf of each of BCCL and Forma-Con to defraud, defeat or delay the creditors of BCCL and Forma-Con. The badges of fraud permit an inference of intent and evidence a presumption of intent that is not rebutted by the evidence that current liabilities were being paid in the ordinary course of business during the Bondfield review period and the Forma-Con review period.

9. The Court granted the BIA applications. Mr. Aquino was held jointly and severally liable alongside the other respondents to pay to the Monitor the amount of $21,807,693 in respect of the BCCL application, and $11,366,890 in respect of the Forma-Con application.

10. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. A further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was also dismissed. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision of October 11, 2024, stated (among other things):

“Mr. Aquino, as the directing mind of Bondfield and Forma-Con, intended to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors of Bondfield and Forma-Con through the false invoicing scheme. In conducting the false invoicing scheme, he acted in his assigned sector of corporate responsibility of engaging with suppliers and overseeing the provision of services and materials. His intent should therefore be attributed or imputed to Bondfield and Forma-Con under s. 96(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the BIA.”

“Consequently, I would affirm the application judge’s order regarding the appellants’ liability for the transfers at undervalue.”

11. By reason of the aforesaid, the parties agree that Aquino is guilty of professional misconduct as he engaged in:

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

Plea by Member

5. Mr. Aquino admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Statement of Allegations and reproduced in paragraph 13 of the ASF. The Panel conducted a plea inquiry and is satisfied that Mr. Aquino’s admissions are voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

Findings

6. The Panel finds that Mr. Aquino committed professional misconduct in violation of section 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941. The Panel makes this finding on the basis of the admission of Mr. Aquino, the information contained within the Agreed Statement of Facts and the decisions of the courts that provide ample support for this conclusion.

Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs

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

a. Pursuant to section 28(4)(a) of the Act, Mr. Aquino’s licence shall be revoked.

b. Pursuant to section 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

c. There shall be no order with respect to costs.

Penalty Submissions

8. Counsel for PEO submitted that Mr. Aquino’s conduct falls at the most serious end of the spectrum of disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct under s. 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941. The misconduct, counsel noted, involved a sustained false invoicing scheme operated over several years through which more than $33 million was illegitimately removed from Bondfield Construction and Forma-Con. The Monitor and Trustee determined that the transactions were entirely without value, and multiple courts—including the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of Canada—found that Mr. Aquino intended to defraud, defeat, or delay the creditors of both companies.

9. Counsel emphasized that Mr. Aquino personally benefitted from the scheme, receiving over $5 million through his holding corporation and ultimately to himself. In counsel’s submission, this conduct represented a profound breach of trust wholly incompatible with the expectations of integrity that attach to a professional engineer.

10. Counsel identified several aggravating factors that, in PEO’s view, elevate the gravity of the misconduct. These included the extraordinary scale of the financial wrongdoing, the prolonged period over which it occurred, the central role played by Mr. Aquino in supervising and approving the false invoices, and the judicial findings that he acted with clear fraudulent intent. The pattern of deliberate dishonest and personal enrichment strikes at the heart of public confidence in the profession.

11. While acknowledging that Mr. Aquino had been licensed since 1996 and had no prior discipline history, Counsel for PEO characterized the mitigating factors as limited. Counsel noted that Mr. Aquino’s agreement to the Agreed Statement of Facts and his participation in a joint submission avoided the need for a contested hearing. However, in the counsel’s submission, these mitigating considerations cannot meaningfully offset the severity of the proven misconduct.

12. Counsel submitted that the penalty sought through the joint submission is consistent with PEO discipline jurisprudence. Counsel referred the Panel to Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario v. Brasseur, 2016 (“Brasseur”), where a member who caused his company to submit fabricated subcontractor quotations to a municipality received a five-month suspension, a fine, and publication, even though the fraudulent amount was minimal. Counsel contrasted that case with the present matter, noting that the scale and personal involvement were vastly greater.

13. Counsel also relied on Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario vs. Kalaycioglu, where the member’s involvement in a multi-million-dollar international investment fraud and misuse of engineering credentials resulted in revocation. Counsel further pointed to the recent decision in Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario vs. Marouf, 2023 ONAPE 2, in which the panel found that a senior utility executive’s fabrication of invoices and misappropriation of approximately $446,000 constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

14. Counsel additionally referred the Panel to Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303, in which the Divisional Court held that the “public interest” test for joint submissions, set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, applies to professional regulatory bodies. Counsel emphasized that the Panel must accept a joint submission unless doing so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest. In the counsel’s submissions, the jointly proposed penalty—revocation, publication with names, and no costs-falls comfortably within the range of reasonable outcomes for misconduct of this magnitude and is necessary to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession, and denounce conduct fundamentally incompatible with the responsibilities of a professional engineer.

Penalty Decision

15. In determining whether to accept the joint submission on penalty, the Panel was guided by the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 and as applied to professional disciplinary proceedings by the Divisional Court in Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303. These authorities make clear that joint submissions play an essential role in the proper functioning of both the justice system and professional regulation. A Panel must accept a jointly proposed penalty unless doing so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest.

16. The threshold for rejecting a joint submission is intentionally high. A joint proposal cannot be rejected simply because the tribunal might, on its own assessment, have arrived at a somewhat different or more finely calibrated penalty. It must be accepted unless it is so outside the appropriate range that a reasonable, informed member of the public would see its acceptance as a breakdown in the discipline system.

a. Seriousness of the Misconduct

17. The misconduct in this case is exceptionally serious. Over a period of years, Mr. Aquino supervised and approved false invoices through which BCCL and Forma-Con paid out more than $33M for goods and services that were never provided. He personally benefitted by more than $5M through payments routed from suppliers to his holding company and then to him. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice expressly found that Mr. Aquino intended to defraud, defeat or delay the creditors of BCCL and Forma-Con, and the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that finding, characterizing him as the “directing mind” who implemented a false invoicing scheme to the detriment of creditors.

18. This was not an isolated lapse of judgement or technical breach. It was a sustained pattern of intentional financial dishonesty by a senior professional in a position of trust, resulting in large-scale financial harm and court-ordered repayment obligations.

19. The Panel accepts PEO’s submission that such conduct represents a profound breach of trust is fundamentally incompatible with continued entitlement to practise professional engineering.

b. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

20. The Panel considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances reflected in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The scale of the misconduct, the prolonged period over which it occurred, the judicial findings of fraudulent intent, and the substantial personal benefit obtained all weigh heavily in aggravation. While Mr. Aquino’s lengthy discipline-free career and his cooperation with PEO in resolving the proceedings are factors in mitigation, they do not meaningfully diminish the seriousness of the misconduct or alter the Panel’s assessment of the appropriate regulatory response. The Panel found that the mitigating factors are outweighed by the gravity of the conduct, the magnitude of the financial harm, and the strong public-protection and denunciation interests at stake.

c. Consistency with PEO penalty jurisprudence

21. The Panel also considered consistency with PEO’s prior disciplinary jurisprudence. In Brasseur, a member caused his company to submit fabricated subcontractor quotations in an attempt to defraud a municipality of approximately $22,512.00, of which only $873.65 was actually paid. The company, not the member, was convicted criminally. On a joint submission, the panel ordered a 5-month suspension, a fine, a reprimand and publication with names, expressly describing fraud involving public funds as serious but taking into account the small amount and collateral consequences to the member and company.

22. In contrast, in Kalaycioglu, the member was convicted in the United States of multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy tied to a high-yield investment scheme. The court ordered him to pay more than US$6.7M in restitution and sentenced him to 27 years in prison. He had used his engineering credentials to lend credibility to the scheme. The panel found his conduct disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional and ordered revocation, with immediate effect, and publication with names, for public protection reasons.

23. The panel noted that Mr. Aquino’s conduct is comparable in seriousness to that in Kalaycioglu, given the scale of the fraudulent scheme, his central involvement, the personal financial gain, and the explicit judicial findings of fraudulent intent.

24. The panel also noted the recent liability decision in Marouf, which underscores PEO’s consistent view that significant financial dishonesty by a professional engineer constitutes disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct warranting the most serious regulatory consequences. In this context, revocation aligns with the upper end of the penalty spectrum for egregious financial misconduct within the profession and cannot credibly be seen as excessive.

d. Public-interest analysis under Anthony-Cook / Bradley

25. The Panel finds that the proposed penalty of revocation and publication with names is not “unhinged” from the circumstances of the offence and the offender. On the contrary, it aligns with the gravity of the misconduct and with the revocation ordered in Kalaycioglu for large-scale financial fraud.

26. A reasonable, informed member of the public or of the profession, aware of all the circumstances and the importance of certainty in resolution discussions, would not review revocation as signalling a breakdown in the discipline system. They would reasonably expect that a professional engineer who has orchestrated and personally profited from a massive fraudulent scheme, as found by multiple courts, should no longer be entitled to practise.

27. In light of these considerations, the panel concluded that the agreed-upon penalty is well within the range of reasonable outcomes for misconduct of this magnitude. Accepting the joint submission advances, rather than undermines, the public interest by protecting the public, maintaining confidence in the integrity of the profession, and delivering an appropriately strong message of deterrence and denunciation.

28. Accordingly, the Panel accepts the Joint Submission as to Penalty in its entirety and orders:

a. Revocation of Mr. Aquino’s licence;

b. Publication of the Panel’s findings and order, with reference to names; and

c. No order with respect to costs.