Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Hayati et al, 2026 ONAPE 2

Date: 2026-02-23

Citation: Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Hayati et al, 2026 ONAPE 2

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

Indexed as: The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Hayati et al, 2026 ONAPE 2

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 Reza Hayati, a former member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

BETWEEN:

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)

-and-

Reza Hayati and Sunrise Constrade Corp.

PANEL MEMBERS: Albert Sweetnam, P.Eng. CHAIR Corrine Dimnik, P.Eng. MEMBER Daniel Boyer PUBLIC MEMBER

Hearing Dates: 2026-01-12 and 2026-01-13

Decision Date: 2026-02-23

Release of Written: 2026-02-23

Reasons:

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

NAME OF LAWYER Reza Hayati and Sunrise Constrade Corp., Unrepresented by Legal Counsel

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

AMENDED DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

1. The Panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”) convened a hearing remotely via Zoom on January 12 and 13, 2026 to consider the conduct of Reza Hayati (“Mr. Hayti”) and Sunrise Constrade Corp. (“Constrade”) as described more particularly below.

Preliminary Issue – Non-Attendance of the Member

2. As neither Mr. Hayati nor Constrade were present at the commencement of the hearing, the panel recessed the hearing for 30 minutes to allow time for them to appear. The Panel Chair asked PEO staff to contact Mr. Hayati during the recess to inform him that the hearing had begun.

3. When the hearing reconvened, Mr. Hayati was not in attendance and had not responded to PEO’s attempts to reach him during the break. Counsel for PEO described the multiple attempts made to provide Mr. Hayati with the Notice of Hearing and information about the hearing generally. These efforts were documented in affidavits marked as Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 7.

4. Although Mr. Hayati initially communicated with the PEO investigator in early 2024 following the PEO’s receipt of a complaint, he had not been in communication with anyone at PEO since May 13, 2024. On October 28, 2025, the Tribunal sent the Notice of Hearing to Mr. Hayati and Constrade to two separate emails found in PEO’s records. When one of the emails bounced back as undeliverable, a process server attempted to serve the Notice of Hearing at the personal and business addresses found in PEO’s records. The process server was advised that Mr. Hayati and Constrade were no longer residents or tenants at these addresses.

5. Several other attempts were made to contact Mr. Hayati and Constrade, including by email, telephone, regular mail and through Mr. Hayati’s LinkedIn account. Mr. Hayati did not respond to any of these communications.

6. After considering the evidence and the service requirements under section 43 of the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28 (the “Act”), the panel was satisfied that Mr. Hayati and Constrade received adequate notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence.

Preliminary Issue – Jurisdiction of Panel

7. Although Mr. Hayati is described as a professional engineer in the style of cause, his licence was cancelled for non-payment of licence fees on June 27, 2025. Constrade’s Certificate of Authorization was cancelled on February 13, 2025.

8. Section 22.1(1) of the Act describes the jurisdiction of the Panel to decide misconduct of a former member as follows:

22.1(1) 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 the time when the person was a member or holder.

9. As set out below, the alleged professional misconduct took place in or about 2023, when Mr. Hayati was a PEO member and Constrade held a Certificate of Authorization. Accordingly, the Panel had jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter.

The Allegations

10. In the Statement of Allegations, it was alleged that Mr. Hayati and Constrade engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of the Act and Ontario Regulation 941 (“Reg. 941”). The allegations related to the preparation and issuance of a stormwater management (“SWM”) report for a residential property in the Township of King (the “Constrade SWM Report”). It was alleged that the Constrade SWM Report was extensively copied from a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management (“FSSM”) report prepared by another engineering firm (SCS) for a different project, municipality, and conservation authority (the “SCS Report”). As a result, the SWM Constrade Report submitted by Mr. Hayati and Constrade did not pertain to the residential property in the Township of King (“the Township”).

11. The Statement of Allegations states that Mr. Hayati and Constrade engaged in professional misconduct in that Mr. Hayati:

a. plagiarized the SCS Report almost in its entirety;

b. used the information and analysis contained in the SCS Report for an entirely different location;

c. adopted and used SCS’s intellectual property improperly and without consent;

d. created an inaccurate and unreliable SWM report;

e. made recommendations that were inappropriate for the property at issue;

f. provided the Constrade SWM Report that was not properly signed or sealed; and,

g. misrepresented an individual Christian Chane as an engineer in training (EIT).

12. It was therefore alleged that Mr. Hayati and Constrade were 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 reasonable provisions for the safeguarding of the life, health or property of persons who may be affected by the work for which the practitioner was responsible, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(b) of Regulation 941;

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

d. Failure to sign, date or seal an engineering document, or failure to do one or more of them, in contravention of section 53 as defined by section 72(2)(e), and;

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

Plea of the Member and/or Holder

13. Because neither Mr. Hayati nor Constrade appeared at the hearing, they were deemed to deny the allegations set out in the Statement of Allegations.

Onus and Standard of Proof

14. PEO bore the onus of proving the professional misconduct set out in the Allegations. The standard of proof applied by the Panel was a “balance of probabilities”, meaning that it is more likely than not that a fact or allegation was established. The Panel was required to determine if the allegations were supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

Facts

15. PEO relied on written documents (Exhibits 8 through 12) and the evidence of three witnesses who had reviewed the Constrade SWM Report: the planner from the Township of King who received the Constrade SWM Report; an engineer who conducted a peer review of the Constrade SWM Report for the Township; and, an engineer from the firm that authored the SCS report that was allegedly copied by Mr. Hayati and Constrade. The PEO investigator who reviewed the complaint and attempted to obtain information from Mr. Hayati also testified.

16. In or about May 3, 2023, SK, a homeowner of a single-family dwelling in the Township of King (the “SK Home”) applied to the Township for a zoning certificate naming an architect, EJ, OAA (the “Architect”) as the authorized agent. Mr. Hayati and Constrade were retained to prepare a SWM report for the SK Home.

17. Mr. Hayati and Constrade issued a report (the Constrade SWM Report) dated June 2023 (neither signed nor sealed) which was apparently prepared by Mr. Hayati and someone identified as “Christian Chane”.

18. Mr. Gaspare Ritacca, a Registered Professional Planner and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, testified that he was the Manager of Planning and Development for the Township of King. He received the Application for Zoning Certificate dated May 3, 2023 that was submitted by the Architect for the SK Home. As part of the Zoning Application, the Architect subsequently submitted the Constrade SWM Report to the Township of King on September 16, 2023.

19. Mr. Ritacca testified that a stormwater management report was part of the zoning and building permit process for a proposed single-family dwelling. He explained that such a report addressed site grading, drainage, stormwater management, and water and sanitary servicing, and it formed part of the building permit submission.

20. As part of their normal practice, the Township of King arranged for an outside peer review of the Constrade SWM Report by R.J Burnside & Associates Limited. Mr. Ruben Arteaga, P.Eng. was assigned to conduct that review.

21. Mr. Arteaga, P.Eng. testified at the hearing and was qualified as a participant expert in municipal servicing and stormwater management. Mr. Arteaga described his peer review of the Constrade SWM Report. He explained that the proposed development of the SK Home was for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a new single-family residence. He said that a stormwater management analysis was commonly required in the Township of King because the lots were large and the surfaces were impermeable.

22. Mr. Arteaga’s initial observation about the Constrade SWM Report was that the length and complexity of the report was surprising: the report exceeded 100 pages, whereas a stormwater management submission for a single-family dwelling would typically be approximately 10 pages in length. Mr. Arteaga stated the length of the report did not seem appropriate for the size of a single-family dwelling.

23. Upon a detailed review of the Constrade SWM Report, Mr. Arteaga identified numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies within the report. He testified that the report contained references to street names, storm sewer infrastructure, and servicing elements that did not exist at or near the subject property in the Township of King. He further testified that the report referenced storm sewer sizes and underground infrastructure that were not applicable to the site.

24. Mr. Arteaga explained that the Constrade SWM Report proposed large underground storage tanks and a jellyfish filtration unit. He explained that these systems were grossly oversized for a single-family residential development and are typically associated with large-scale developments. Such systems require ongoing maintenance and would be impractical and unnecessarily costly for a single homeowner.

25. At some point in his review of the Constrade SWM Report, Mr. Arteaga recognized some street names for streets located in Newmarket. He had seen these names in a 2022 report that he previously reviewed for stormwater management report prepared by SCS Consulting Group Ltd. (“SCS”) for a townhouse development in the Town of Newmarket (“SCS Report”).

26. The SCS Report related to a materially different development consisting of approximately 70 townhouse units within the Lake Simcoe watershed, subject to different municipal and conservation authority requirements than those applicable to the Township of King.

27. Mr. Arteaga noted that the Constrade SWM Report contained identical formatting, wording, tables, figures, calculations, and assumptions as were in the SCS Report. He testified that even specific numerical values, including storage volumes, were the same. He testified that, in his professional opinion, it would be implausible for such values to be identical given the significant differences in site size, development type, and regulatory context.

28. As a result of these findings, Mr. Arteaga discontinued further technical review and prepared a technical memorandum dated October 3, 2023. The memorandum advised the Township of King that the analysis contained in the Constrade SWM Report was not applicable to the subject site and that the deficiencies were fundamental in nature. Mr. Arteaga recommended that the Township obtain a proper SWM report specifically for this site.

29. Mr. Ritacca testified that the Township of King required the owner of the SK Home to submit a SWM report from a different engineering firm that was signed and sealed by that firm. The zoning certificate was ultimately issued on April 8, 2024.

30. In addition to reporting their concerns about the Constrade SWM Report to the Township of King, R.J. Burnside & Associates Ltd. sent the report to SCS. Stephen Schaefer P.Eng. testified about SCS’s review of the Constrade SWM Report.

31. Mr. Schaefer was qualified as a participant expert in municipal servicing and stormwater management engineering. He testified that SCS prepared the SCS report on June 16, 2022 in respect to a residential townhouse development consisting of approximately 70 units located in the Town of Newmarket. He testified that this development was of medium complexity and subject to Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority requirements.

32. Mr. Schaefer said that the SCS Report addressed both external municipal servicing capacity and internal site grading and stormwater management. He explained that such reports require site-specific analysis, modelling, and professional judgment tailored to the development type, size, and regulatory framework.

33. Mr. Schaefer and his team conducted a detailed, line-by-line comparison of the Constrade SWM Report and the SCS Report. He testified that this comparison revealed extensive verbatim copying of text, calculations, tables, figures, and formatting. Some examples he provided were as follows:

a. The Constrade SWM Report contained identical numerical values and calculations to those in the SCS Report, despite the projects differing significantly in size, density, and location. In his opinion, such identical results would not reasonably occur if independent engineering analysis had been conducted.

b. The Constrade SWM Report contained references to conservation authority requirements, including Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority guidelines, that were not applicable to the subject property in the Township of King.

c. The Constrade SWM Report referenced infrastructure elements, drawings, and appendices that were irrelevant to a single-family residential development.

d. The Constrade SWM Report included drawings, figures, and proprietary content originating from SCS materials, including formatting elements and identifying features associated with SCS’s work product. He testified that portions of the report included names of SCS engineers and references to infrastructure that did not exist at the Township of King site.

e. The Constrade SWM Report proposed underground storage chambers and a “jellyfish” filtration system. Such systems were wholly inappropriate for a single-family dwelling and would ordinarily be used for large developments requiring centralized stormwater management and ongoing maintenance.

34. Mr. Schaefer also pointed out some typographical errors in the SCS Report that were duplicated in the Constrade SWM Report. For example, where the original report wrote town of Newmarket rather than Town of Newmarket, the Constrade SWM Report wrote town of King.

35. Mr. Schaefer concluded that, in his professional opinion, the Constrade SWM Report demonstrated a lack of site-specific analysis and a failure to exercise professional judgment. Mr. Schaefer testified that in his opinion applied engineering analysis from a different project, municipality, and regulatory context constituted negligence and posed a risk to the integrity of municipal decision-making.

36. In response to questions from the Panel, Mr. Schaefer opined that the deficiencies identified in the Constrade SWM Report could not be attributed to coincidence or common engineering practice. He testified that the extent and nature of the similarities were consistent only with direct copying.

37. The SCS Report was publicly available on the Town of Newmarket’s website as part of a planning application. While the report was publicly accessible, Mr. Schaefer asserted that it remained the intellectual property of SCS and was not authorized for reuse on unrelated projects.

38. Finally, Mr. Schaefer opined that, had the Constrade SWM Report been relied upon without peer review, it could have resulted in inappropriate stormwater infrastructure requirements being imposed or approved for the subject property.

39. Mr. Schaefer prepared and submitted a formal complaint to the PEO after his team completed their review. The complaint included copies of both reports and highlighted the copied sections to illustrate the extent of the similarities.

40. Arjang Tavassoli, a professional engineer employed in the Regulatory Compliance Department of PEO (the “Investigator”) was assigned carriage of the complaint on January 25, 2024. That same day, the Investigator contacted Mr. Hayati by email, providing notice of the investigation and enclosing materials received from Mr. Schaefer.

41. When Mr. Hayati did not respond to the Investigator’s January 25th email, the Investigator sent a follow-up email on February 15, 2024. On February 23, 2024, Mr. Hayati responded requesting an extension of time “for a few days,” citing “a serious health issue” for his inability to respond sooner. The Investigator granted an extension until March 15, 2024.

42. Mr. Hayati did not respond to the complaint by March 15, 2024 and the Investigator wrote to him on March 21, 2024 asking for a response. The Investigator followed up again on April 2, 2024.

43. Mr. Hayati emailed the Investigator April 2, 2024 indicating that he was dealing with “a medical situation” affecting his ability to respond and “once I have received confirmation from my lawyer, I will promptly forward the response to you without further delay.”

44. On April 11, 2024, Mr. Hayati advised the Investigator that his lawyer was in court and he had not heard back from him. Mr. Hayati promised to send his response to the Investigator by the following Monday, but did not do so.

45. The Investigator emailed Mr. Hayati on April 18 and 26, 2024, but did not receive a response. On May 10, 2024, the Investigator wrote to Mr. Hayati summarizing the history of correspondence and outstanding requests. On the same date, Mr. Hayati contacted him by telephone. The Investigator testified that he returned the call and arranged a further conversation for May 13, 2024.

46. The Investigator and Mr. Hayati spoke over the phone on May 13, 2024 and the Investigator testified that Mr. Hayati stated that he would provide a response to the complaint by the end of that week, specifically by May 17, 2024. The Investigator agreed to send a list of questions to Mr. Hayati, which he did later that day.

47. Mr. Hayati did not provide a response by May 17, 2024 and there were no further substantive communications from Mr. Hayati thereafter. The Investigator attempted to contact Mr. Hayati again on June 16, 2025, but the telephone numbers that had previously been functional were no longer in service.

48. The Investigator testified that Mr. Hayati never provided details about the nature of the medical issue and did not provide any medical documentation. Also, Mr. Hayati did not identify his counsel by name or state that he was formally represented. No lawyer or law firm contacted PEO on behalf of Mr. Hayati.

49. In addition to his attempts to engage Mr. Hayati, the Investigator attempted to contact “Christian Chane”, who was identified in the Constrade SWM Report as an EIT. The Investigator’s correspondence sent to Mr. Chane was returned as undeliverable. PEO had no record of Mr. Chane ever being enrolled in the EIT program.

Decision and Finding of Professional Misconduct

50. The Panel found that Mr. Hayati and Constrade committed professional misconduct as set out in the Statement of Allegations having regard to the evidence, onus and standard of proof.

Plagiarism and Misuse of Intellectual Property

51. The Panel reviewed and compared the Constrade SWM Report and the SCS Report and found that the Constrade SWM Report, which was submitted after the SCS Report was published, clearly copied the SCS Report with the exception of changing a few names and places. This analysis was confirmed by PEO’s three experienced witnesses.

52. In copying the SCS Report, Mr. Hayati and Constrade engaged in plagiarism and adopted and used SCS’s work product as if it were their own. This was a deceptive and highly unethical practice.

53. The Panel accepted the expert evidence of Mr. Arteaga and Mr. Schaefer that the similarities between the two reports could not be reasonably explained by coincidence, reliance on common standards or use of generic templates. Rather, the evidence supported the conclusion that the Constrade SWM Report was not the product of independent professional judgment but instead was derived almost entirely from another engineering firm’s proprietary work.

54. Furthermore, in the process of copying the SCS Report, Mr. Hayati and Constrade reproduced the identical style of SCS’s engineering reports; for example, copies formatting (i.e. an identical index), logos, footings (i.e. three dots and an arrow), and customized bullet points (i.e. a dot and a short arrow). Mr. Schaefer testified that in his opinion this was a clear breach of SCS’s intellectual property.

Negligence and Inappropriate Engineering Work

55. The Panel further found that the Constrade SWM Report was inappropriate, inaccurate, and unreliable for the development it purported to address, namely the SK Home. The evidence established that the report proposed stormwater management measures and servicing infrastructure that were grossly disproportionate to a single-family residential dwelling and were designed for a materially different type of development.

56. The Panel accepted the unchallenged expert evidence that the Constrade SWM Report contained recommendations that could not reasonably be relied upon for municipal review or approval, including oversized infrastructure, references to inapplicable streets and services, and regulatory requirements that did not apply to the Township of King.

57. The Panel found that the preparation and submission of such a report demonstrated negligence within the meaning of Regulation 941. A professional engineer is expected to exercise reasonable care, skill, and judgment appropriate to the nature of the project. The evidence established that the Constrade SWM Report fell well below that standard and did not reflect any meaningful consideration of the actual site conditions or development proposal.

Failure to Sign and Seal the SWM Report

58. The Panel found that the Constrade SWM report was issued without the required signature and seal of a professional engineer. The requirement to sign and seal engineering documents is a fundamental regulatory obligation and serves as a public assurance that a qualified professional has taken responsibility for the work.

59. The absence of a signature and seal is not a technical oversight. In the circumstances of this case, it reinforced the Panel’s finding that Mr. Hayati did not properly assume professional responsibility for the work issued under Constrade’s Certificate of Authorization. This omission constituted a further breach of the Act and Regulation 941 and supported a finding of professional misconduct.

Misrepresentation of Professional Status

60. The Panel found that the Constrade SWM Report identified an individual as an EIT when, in fact, that individual was never enrolled in PEO’s Engineering Intern Program. The Panel finds that this representation was misleading and inconsistent with the obligation owed by members and certificate holders to regulators, municipalities, and the public.

61. Misrepresenting an individual’s professional status undermines confidence in the regulatory system and in the profession’s commitment to transparency and accountability. The Panel found that this conduct further supported the allegations of professional misconduct.

Conclusion

62. The Panel concluded that the evidence established on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Hayati and Constrade engaged in professional misconduct as alleged in the Statement of Allegations. The misconduct in this case went to the core values of the profession, including integrity, honesty, accountability, and the obligation to protect the public. The conduct represented a serious departure from the standards expected of professional engineers and Certificate of Authorization holders in Ontario.

Decision and Finding of Penalty and Costs

63. PEO Counsel submitted that given the Panel’s findings of professional misconduct, the appropriate disposition was revocation of Mr. Hayati’s licence and revocation of Constrade’s Certificate of Authorization, together with an order for costs. Counsel emphasized that the purpose of penalty under the Act is protective and regulatory. Sanctions for professional misconduct are intended to safeguard the public, uphold professional standards, and maintain confidence in the self-regulation of the engineering profession.

64. In support of their proposed penalty, PEO Counsel relied on the Discipline Committee decisions in PEO v. Cugliari, PEO v. Marouf, and PEO v. Riggs. Counsel submitted that these cases established that revocation is an appropriate outcome where misconduct reflects a fundamental breach of professional integrity and trust. Counsel emphasized that Cugliari confirms that public trust is central to the practice of professional engineering and that revocation serves an important protective function by ensuring that any future application for licensure must be considered by the Discipline Committee under section 37 of the Act. Counsel submitted that this level of scrutiny is necessary where the misconduct demonstrates serious disregard for professional obligations.

65. Counsel further submitted that Marouf and Riggs support the proposition that a Member’s failure to attend a hearing or meaningfully engage in the investigative process is a relevant consideration in determining penalty. Counsel argued that non-participation deprived the Panel of mitigating evidence, including evidence of insight, remediation, or rehabilitation. Prior Discipline Committee decisions treated such circumstances as aggravating in the penalty analysis.

66. The Panel accepted the submissions of PEO Counsel respecting the appropriate penalty. The Panel carefully reviewed the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, the impact of the conduct on the public interest, the need for proportionality, and if the penalties and costs were consistent with those imposed in similar cases decided by the Panels of the Discipline Committee.

67. The Panel found that revocation was an appropriate sanction given the seriousness of the misconduct. Although there was no evidence that the homeowner or Township of King were harmed by the submission of the Constrade SWM Report to the Township, had the deficiencies not been identified through peer review, the submission of a plagiarized and inappropriate engineering report created a real risk that the municipal decisions could have been made on the basis of unsound engineering analysis. Such conduct undermined public confidence in the profession and in the self-regulatory mandate of PEO.

68. The Panel also noted that stormwater management and functional servicing are matters that directly affect property, infrastructure, and public safety. Municipal authorities are entitled to rely on engineering reports as accurate, competent, and prepared in good faith.

69. With respect to Costs, under section 28(4)(j) of the Act, the Panel has jurisdiction to fix the costs to be awarded. The Panel would have preferred to have a Bill of Costs from PEO Counsel, but in reviewing the work done in this investigation and the hearing, and the costs ordered in similar matters before the Discipline Committee, an order for costs in the amount of $10,000 was found to be reasonable and proportionate. The profession should not bear the costs of this matter. The Panel ordered that costs would be ordered jointly and severally against Mr. Hayati and Constrade.