Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Jones et al, 2026 ONAPE 3

Date: 2026-03-04

Citation: Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Jones et al, 2026 ONAPE 3

Indexed as: The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Jones et al, 2026 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 Charles W. K. Jones, P.Eng., a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, and Mirkwood Services Inc. o/a Mirkwood Engineering, a holder of a Certificate of Authorization.

BETWEEN:

The Association of Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO)

-and-

Charles W. K. Jones, P.Eng., and Mirkwood Services Inc. o/a Mirkwood Engineering

PANEL MEMBERS: Geoffrey Pond, P.Eng. CHAIR Gary Thompson, P.Eng. MEMBER Emile Ramlochan, LLM PUBLIC MEMBER

Hearing Dates: 2026-03-04

Decision Date: 2026-04-22

Release of Written: 2026-04-22

Reasons:

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

NAME OF LAWYER: Emily Stock, Counsel for the Respondents

NAME OF LAWYER: David Jacobs, Independent Legal Counsel to the Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

This matter was heard by a Panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”) on March 4, 2026. The hearing was conducted 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, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28 (the “Act”), and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22.
Charles W. K. Jones (the “Member”) and Mirkwood Services o/a Mirkwood Engineering (the “Holder”), collectively the “Respondents,” attended the hearing with legal representation. PEO was represented by legal counsel. All participants attended the hearing electronically.
The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into agreements with respect to the matter.

The Agreed Statement of Facts

Counsel for PEO presented the Panel with an Agreed Statement of Facts containing an agreement made between the parties about the facts related to this matter. These are summarized as follows, except that the documents referred to in bold type were attached to the Agreed Statement of Facts and are not reproduced here:

i. At all material times, the Member was a professional engineer licensed pursuant to the Act.

ii. At all material times, the Holder held a certificate of authorization (“CofA”) naming the Member as the individual accepting professional responsibility for the engineering services provided under the CofA.

iii. Evertrust Development (Welland) Inc. (“EDWI”) retained the Holder through a Canadian Construction Documents Committee Service Contract Between Owner and Consultant (CCDC31) dated April 30, 2021. The Holder was retained to provide structural engineering services for the residential development of a five-storey condominium apartment building with three-storey central link (Upper Vista on the Welland Canal (the “Project”)) at 350 Prince Charles Drive South in the City of Welland (the “City”).

iv. On or about May 5, 2021, Jones signed an Owner Commitment to have General Review undertaken by Architects and/or Professional Engineers for the Project.

v. The Holder issued drawings titled “Issued for Foundation Permit” signed and sealed by the Member dated May 7, 2021. Subsequently, the Holder issued drawings titled “For Building Permit” signed and sealed by the Member dated June 18, 2021.

vi. On or about September 20, 2021, the City issued a conditional permit to construct one level of underground parking garage for the Project.

vii. On or about October 15, 2021, Buckingham Steel Design Inc. (“BSDI”) issued structural steel shop drawings signed and sealed by Alper Turan, P.Eng. (“Turan”).

viii. The City issued a building permit for the above grade work on or about March 22, 2022.

ix. BSDI issued a set of structural steel shop drawings “For Fabrication” (“BSDI Drawings”) signed and sealed by Turan on or about June 16, 2022. Maximum shear force of 225 kN was specified to design the connections between the W690x170 beams to HSS columns at gridlines 6, 8, 21 and 23 on the second floor (the “Connections”).

x. The Member rejected the BDSI Drawings on June 23, 2022, and requested resubmission. He provided the following: “FYI, forces will not be provided for all connections. Unless otherwise noted, design all connections for 50% of shear capacity of beam.” Had the instructions been followed, the connection would have been designed for a maximum shear force of 1030 kN, which is still less than the required strength, as explained below.

xi. On June 29, 2022, the Member reviewed a final set of BSDI drawings (the “Revised Drawings”). He did not make any comments or corrections to the Revised Drawings, nor did he require them to be revised and resubmitted, despite the fact that they still specified a maximum shear force of 225 kN for the Connections.

xii. On or about July 7, 2022, structural steel erection on site started. The steel was fabricated in accordance with the Revised Drawings.

xiii. The Holder’s field review report signed by the Member dated September 29, 2022, indicated completion of structural steel installation on the second floor with no deficiencies.

xiv. On or about February 18, 2023, at around 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time, a southeast portion of the structure collapsed. No one was injured in the collapse.

xv. An inspector from the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development of Ontario (“MLITSD”) issued a report dated February 19, 2023, which noted that there was potential for further collapse. Accordingly, the inspector issued an order that the inside of the southern portion of the building and the grounds to the East of the Southern portion of the building be kept clear of all people. As well, the City issued an Order to Remedy Unsafe Building dated February 19, 2023.

xvi. At the request of EDWI, Samuel & Tipler Inc. issued a letter dated February 24, 2023, signed and sealed by David Tipler, P.Eng. (the “Tipler Letter”), which included the following:

a. “Based on our preliminary findings…, the data suggested that the initial failure occurred due to the collapse of a main steel girder at the 2nd floor along grid 23 spanning between grids D and C. [Girder 23]”; and

b. “The shop drawing plans specify that the beam to column connections for Girder 23 should follow Detail 4. Detail 4 on the shop drawings specify that the connection was designed for a maximum shear load of 225 kN. Our calculations indicate that the weight being supported by the Girder 23 connections was in the order of magnitude of 400 to 500 kN at time of the collapse.”

xvii. On or about February 26, 2023, the remaining balcony portion on the southeast section of the building also collapsed.

xviii. Remedial steps were taken. On or about March 8, 2023, the Holder issued a letter signed and sealed by the Member confirming that the structure was now stable. Based on this opinion, MLITSD removed the stop work order. Repairs as proposed by Jones were subsequently carried out.

xix. CEP Forensic (“CEP”) was retained by EDWI. It issued a report dated June 1, 2023, signed and sealed by Carla Ladner, P.Eng., and Shane Kasprick, P.Eng. (the “CEP Report”), which concluded, among other things:

a. “The W690x170 structural steel beans along Grid Lines 6, 8, 21 and 23 (failure location) are inadequate to support the design loading but should have been able to withstand the dead loads at the time of the failure.”

b. “The connections of the W690X170 structural steel beams to the HSS254x254x13 columns in the above-noted locations were significantly undersized and likely the point of failure. The shop drawings indicated that the strength of this connection was 225 kN. However, the actual factored design load required for this connection was determined to be approximately 1800 kN. This connection was significantly overstressed (as evidenced by the failed bolts in the connection) even under the construction loads in place at the time of failure.”

xx. PEO retained DIALOG Ontario Inc. (“DIALOG”) to provide an independent expert opinion about the actions and conduct of the Member and the Holder in this matter. DIALOG issued a report signed and sealed by Daria Khachi, P.Eng. (“Khachi”), dated February 16, 2024 (the “Dialog Report”), which concluded, among other things:

a. “The design of the W690x170 girders on the 2nd floor framing along gridlines 6, 8, 21 and 23 fail in flexural strength and are more than 44% overstressed.”

b. “Instructions to the steel fabricator [BSDI] to design connection forces for 50% of beam shear capacity would have resulted in a connection that is 48% overstressed.”

c. “Based on my findings of design errors noted in this report, these errors are not minor in nature.”

d. “Mr. Jones P.Eng. and Mirkwood Engineering failed to meet the standards expected of a reasonable and prudent practitioner.”

xxi. The Member responded to the Dialog Report on April 4, 2024. He argued, among other things, that the under-designed connections were the responsibility of the steel fabricator and their engineer. He also asserted that the conclusions in the CEP Report and in the Dialog Report were based on the loading information in the “For Building Permit” drawings signed and sealed by the Member dated June 18, 2023, and that the Ontario Building Code would have allowed him to use lower loading information. He prepared calculations using what he called “building code allowed tools” to support this latter assertion.

xxii. The Member’s response was provided to Khachi. In response, DIALOG issued a further report dated May 30, 2024 (the “Second Dialog Report”), which stated, among other things, that the steel frame, including beams, columns and connections are “a critical design element in the building, as it supports multiple floors above. A critical element such as the frame should not be overlooked by the engineer of record, particularly when the end connection force is being questioned by the connection engineer.” Khachi also opined that, “based on MSI’s revised calculations”, the connection would still have been 28% overstressed and the beam would still have been 23% over stressed.

xxiii. For the purpose of these proceedings, the Respondents accept as correct the findings, opinions and conclusions in the CEP Report, the Dialog Report, and the Second Dialog Report, as redacted. The Respondents admit that their design was deficient, as outlined in these documents.

xxiv. The Member admits that he failed to take adequate steps to review the BSDI Revised Drawings before allowing construction to proceed in accordance with the Revised Drawings.

xxv. The Respondents accordingly admit that they failed to maintain the standards that a reasonable and prudent practitioner would maintain in the circumstances, that they failed to make reasonable provision for the safeguarding of life, health or property, and that they failed to make reasonable provision for complying with applicable standards and codes.

xxvi. By reason of the aforesaid, the parties agree that Jones and MSI 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 reasonable provision for the safeguarding of life, health or property of a person who may be affected by the work for which the practitioner is responsible, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(b) of Regulation 941;

c. Failing to make reasonable provision for complying with applicable standards and codes, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(d) of Regulation 941;

d. 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 of the Member and/or Holder (the “Respondents”)

The Panel conducted an oral plea inquiry and was satisfied that the Respondent’s admissions and pleas with respect to the allegations set out in in the Agreed Statement of Facts were voluntary, informed and unequivocal.
The Respondents admitted to the truth of the facts in the Schedules referred to in the Agreed Statement of Facts.
The Respondents acknowledged, and admitted that the facts agreed to in paragraphs 1-27 of the Agreed Statement of Facts constitute professional misconduct as defined under the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28 and pled guilty thereto, specifically that they:

a. committee negligence, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by sections 72(1) and 72(2)(a) of Regulation 941;

b. failed to make reasonable provision 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. failed to make responsible provision for complying with applicable codes in connection with work being undertaken by the practitioner, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(d) of Regulation 941; and

d. engaged in 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;

By the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Respondents confirmed that they:

a. understood the nature of the allegations against them;

b. are consenting to, and admitting to the facts as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

c. understand that by admitting to the facts agreed to in the Agreed Statement of Facts they are waiving their right to require PEO to prove the allegations against them, and their right to a hearing;

d. understand that the Discipline Committee can accept the Agreed Statement of Facts as correct and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

e. understand that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on PEO’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including the Member and the Holder’s names, shall be published in the official publication of the PEO;

f. understand that any agreement with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

g. understand that they are executing the Agreed Statement of Facts voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of their legal representative or having had the opportunity to seek and obtain legal advice.

The Respondents provide that their agreement to the admitted facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts is pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28 and for no other purpose.
The Respondents acknowledge that their admissions to the facts outlined in the Agreed Statement of Facts does not constitute an admission by the Respondents as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
Based on the Agreed Statement of Facts and the circumstances of the plea of guilt, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario and the Respondents submit that the Discipline Committee should find the Member and the Holder guilty of professional misconduct as set out therein.

Decision

Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Respondents’ guilty pleas and the submissions of the parties, the Panel finds the Respondents guilty as they engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to sections 72(1), 72(2)(a), 72(2)(b), 72(2)(d) and 72(2)(j) of the R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 941 General.

Reasons for Decision

The considered the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Respondents’ guilty pleas and the submissions of the parties, the Panel finds the Respondents guilty as they engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to sections 72(1), 72(2)(a), 72(2)(b), 72(2)(d) and 72(2)(j) of the R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 941 General.

Sections 72(1) and 72(2)(a) of R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 941 General (“Regulation 941”)

The Respondents committed negligence defined under sections 72(1) and 72(2) of Regulation 941 by first, failing to make corrections to the Revised Drawings to account for the Structure’s maximum shear forces and, secondly, by signing a field review report indicating that the second-floor structural steel installation had been completed without deficiencies when the evidence before them showed that it was deficient. Thirdly, the Respondents signed a field report that misinformed the MLITSD that the structure was stable such that remedial work could be completed, when it was not.
First, the Respondents provided incorrect instruction to BSDI and subsequently failed to make corrections to Revised Drawings issued by BSDI to ensure that the Connections were sufficient to support the maximum shear forces, when they were not. This foreseeably led to the Structure collapsing.
Secondly, the Respondents signed a field review report on and around September 29, 2022, which indicated that second-floor structural steel installation had been completed without any deficiencies. This was followed by a collapse of the southeast portion of the Structure on February 18, 2023, and the collapse of the remaining balcony portion located on the southeast section of the Structure on February 26, 2023.
Thirdly, on or about March 8, 2023, the Respondents issued a letter signed and sealed by the Member confirming that remedial work ordered in a City-issued Order to Remedy Unsafe Building dated February 19, 2023 (which included an order for the southern portion of the building to be kept clear of all people) had been complete and that the structure was stable. Relying on this letter, the MLITSD was satisfied that the structure was ready to be repaired (which led to the removal of a stop work order), when information was available to the Respondents that the structure was not stable.
The report issued by CEP and attached to the Agreed Statement of Facts indicated that the designs issued by the Respondents consisted of significant deficiencies, including: (i) the structural steel beams were inadequate to support the design loading; (ii) the connections between the structural steel beams to columns were significantly undersized; (iii) the strength of these connections were insufficient for the actual factored design load required; and, (iv) that this led the connections to be overstressed and the likely point of failure when the structure collapsed.
The subsequent report issued by DIALOG dated February 16, 2024, whose author opined that the design of girders on the 2nd floor framing were “more than 44% overstressed” which was attributable to “[i]nstructions to the steel fabricator [BSDI] to design connections forces for 50% of beam capacity would have resulted in a connection that is 48% overstressed” which are errors that “are not minor in nature” and “failed to meet the standards expected of a reasonable and prudent practitioner.”
Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that by providing incorrect instructions to a steel fabricator and, subsequently, failing to make corrections to their Revised Drawings, combined with signing an inaccurate field report, which indicated that second floor structural steel installation was completed without deficiencies (and then misinforming the MLITSD that the structure was stable), the Respondents engaged in a pattern of conduct that are acts and omissions 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 as required under sections 72(1) and 72(2)(a) of Regulation 941.

Sections 72(b) of Regulation 941

The Panel finds that the Respondents committed professional misconduct pursuant to section 72(2)(b) of Regulation 941.
As outlined in the preceding section, the Respondents provided inaccurate information to the steel fabricator and, later, failed to make corrections to the steel fabricators’ Revised Drawings, which resulted in the connection forces that were designed to be overstressed, causing the Structure to collapse.
These events, combined with the Respondents’ failure to provide an accurate field report about the second-floor structural steel installation, and by providing misinformation about the stability of the Structure to the MLITSD (which led to the premature removal of a stop work order), demonstrates that the Respondents failed to make reasonable provision for the safeguarding of life, health and property of a person who may be affected by the work the practitioner was responsible for, which constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to section 72(b) of Regulation 941.

Section 72(d) of Regulation 941

The Panel finds that the Respondents committed professional misconduct pursuant to section 72(2)(d) of Regulation 941 by failing to make responsible provision to comply with codes and standards of practice as is expected in connection with the specific work being undertaken by the Respondents.
The Panel notes the conclusions rendered by the independent expert, Daria Khachi, P.Eng., about the actions and conduct of the Respondents. In particular, the Panel notes the following responses made to questions #1 and #3 in the expert report:
Did Charles W. K. Jones, P.Eng. fail to be aware of, consider, or comply with any standards or codes applicable to analysis and design of the building, and explain the reasons referencing the applicable section of the code and/or standards for each issue identified.

I have reviewed Jones’ structural design of the 5-storey building based on the requirements of Part 4 of the 2012 Ontario Building Code which is the relevant section of the Code in effect at the time of permit submission, as well as the requirements of CSA S16 for steel design and properly specifying the forces to be resisted by steel connections, and the requirements of CAS A23.3-14 for the design of anchorage to concrete.

I have reviewed the structural design of Jones and confirm the following design deficiencies:

The design of the W690x170 girders on the 2nd floor framing along gridlines 6, 8, 21 and 23 fail in flexural strength and are more than 44% overstressed
Instructions to steel fabricator to design connection forces for 50% of beam shear capacity would have resulted in a connection that is 48% overstressed

The design deficiencies highlighted above are critical and will inevitably lead to failure, with some already having failed, [Emphasis added]

Consider whether Charles W. K. Jones, P.Eng. and Mirkwood Engineering failed to meet the standards expected of a reasonable and prudent practitioner in the circumstances;

Having designed a 5-storey structure with critical deficiencies in their design, and missed opportunities to catch some of these mistakes in either shop drawings or as identified in the independent review reports, I respectfully conclude that the work of W. K. Jones, P.Eng. and Mirkwood Engineering is inconsistent with generally accepted standards in the field of professional engineering. Mr. Jones, P.Eng. and Mirkwood Engineering failed to meet the standards expected of a reasonable and prudent practitioner. [Emphasis added]

The Panel finds that the Respondents committed professional misconduct pursuant to section 72(d) of Regulation 941 by failing to comply with Part 4 of the 2012 Ontario Building Code, the requirements of CSA S16 for steel design, and for failing to properly specify the forces to be resisted by steel requirements of CAS A23.3-14, all of which are standards that are expected to have been met by a reasonable and prudent practitioner.

Section 72(j) of Regulation 941

The Panel finds that as the Respondents committed acts of professional misconduct pursuant to sections 72(1), 72(2)(a), 72(2)(b), and 72(2)(d) as found in the preceding paragraphs, this supports a finding that the Respondents committed professional misconduct pursuant to section 72(j) of the R.R.O. 941.
For greater clarity, the Panel finds that the admitted facts support a finding that the Respondents engaged in conduct relevant to the practice of professional engineering that would reasonably be regarded as unprofessional.

Penalty Decision

The parties agreed to Joint Submission as to Penalty and Costs, which was presented to the Panel. At the hearing, and in an oral ruling rendered at the hearing of March 4, 2026, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission as to Penalty and Costs and made the following order:

a) Pursuant to section 28(4)(f) of the Act¸ the Respondents 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, the Member’s licence and the Holder’s certificate of authorization shall both be suspended for a period of three (3) months, commencing upon pronouncement of the Discipline Committee’s penalty decision;

c) Pursuant to section 28(4)(d) and/or 28(4)(e) of the Act, a restriction shall be imposed upon the Member’s licence and the Holder’s certificate of authorization prohibiting the Member 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 their signature and seal on every final drawing, report, or other document prepared or sealed by the Member. If the Member demonstrates his competence by successfully passing the Advanced Structural Design (07-STR-A5/16-CIV-B2) exam, this restriction shall be permanently lifted;

d) 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

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

Reasons for Penalty Decision

The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and accepts the penalty jointly submitted by the parties. To arrive at this decision, the Panel considering the following: (i) the “public interest test”; (ii) submissions made by the parties; and, (iii) core sentencing principles used when determining if a penalty is appropriate.

The public interest test

The governing authority to be applied by a disciplinary body when considering whether to reject a joint submission on penalty is the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 (“Anthony-Cook”), which has been previously applied by disciplinary bodies in the Province of Ontario (see Bradley v Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303; see Ontario College of Teachers v Merolle, 2023 ONSC 3453).
Referred to as the “public interest test”, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that courts and adjudicative bodies should consider “rejecting joint submissions only where the proposed sentence would be viewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system”. The court went on to describe this as an “undeniably high threshold”. The court noting the following in its ruling:

“Rejection denotes a submission so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down.” [Emphasis added]

Therefore, when accepting the penalty jointly proposed by the Parties, the Panel determined first, whether it had jurisdiction to make the requested order and, secondly, on application of the “public interest test,” whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute and/or otherwise be contrary to the public interest.
Considering the submissions made by the parties, aggravating and mitigating factors, core sentencing principles applicable to this disciplinary matter, and on application of the “public interest test,” the Panel finds that the penalty jointly proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs is neither unduly harsh, nor unduly lenient so as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

Submissions made by the Parties

The Parties led three cases that they submitted supports the proposed joint penalty. These cases were: (i) Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Braunshtein 2010 (“Braunshtein”); (ii) Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Sawchyn et al, 2023 ONAPE 11 (“Sawchyn”); and (iii) Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v. Tessler, 2019 11 (“Tessler”).
These cases were reviewed and considered by the Panel when formulation this decision.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

The Panel finds that the seriousness of the misconduct, and their breach of their commitment to the service agreement, standards of practice, building standards and codes, are aggravating factors. The Panel also finds that the Respondents’ favourable discipline history and cooperation with the discipline process are mitigating factors.
The misconduct in this case was serious, which resulted in harm to the public’s safety and damage to property. Their negligence directly led to foreseeable, avoidable, and significant damage to property. Their negligence placed the public at risk of serious personal injury, which could have been realized in the event the Structure collapsed on people who may have been in and around the building.
The Panel also finds that the Respondents signed a commitment to provide competent engineering services in accordance with the terms of the service agreement, and consistent with the standards of engineering practice, building standards and relevant codes, all of which would have reduced the risk of harm to the public. The Respondent’s misconduct and, specifically, their negligence, breached these standards, undermining the trust the public may have in the engineering profession while also causing harm to property, and placed people at risk of personal injury, all of which was avoidable. This is an aggravating factor the Panel took into consideration.
The Panel finds that the Respondents’ unremarkable disciplinary history is a mitigating factor, as was the Member’s cooperation to resolve the matter expeditiously and cost-effectively without a hearing. Contesting the allegations would have required PEO to devote significant time and resources to proving the allegations on its merits. Notwithstanding, the Panel finds that the mitigating factors of the Respondent’s behaviour does not outweigh the aggravating factors related to the circumstances of this matter.

Core sentencing principles

When deciding to accept the Joint Submission as to Penalty and Costs the Panel considered core principles of sentencing applied by professional regulatory bodies. These are as follows: (i) protection of the public; (ii) general deterrence; (iii) specific deterrence; (iv) rehabilitation; and (v) maintenance of the reputation of the profession. The Panel also considered aggravating and mitigating factors when determining if the joint penalty was properly tailored to the circumstances of this case.

(i) Protection of the public

The Panel finds that the proposed three (3) month suspension of the Member’s licence, and the Holder’s certificate of authorization, combined with imposing formal supervision on the Respondents on return to practice, protects the public.
This temporary suspension removes the Respondents’ ability to provide engineering services to the public on a temporary basis, only returning them to practice when efforts to rehabilitate the Respondents have been achieved. Furthermore, returning the Respondents to practice under the supervision of another professional engineer acceptable to the Registrar ensures that those engineering services that are delivered to the public meet the required standards of professional engineering.

(ii) General deterrence

The Panel finds that by publishing the findings of the Discipline Committee, with reference to names, provide general deterrence to the engineering membership.
Through publication, the members of the engineering profession are made aware of conduct that is unacceptable. Publication of the decision enables members to inform themselves about steps to take to avoid engaging in the same unacceptable behaviour and the consequences from failing to do so.

(iii) Specific deterrence

The Panel finds that a reprimand (which was delivered to the Member on March 4, 2026) specifically deters the Respondents.
The reprimand allowed the Panel to directly address the concerns with the Respondents specifically related to their conduct. The reprimand will serve to deter the same unacceptable behaviour.

(iv) Rehabilitation

The Panel finds that the supervision by a professional engineer acceptable to the Registrar, combined with the optional completion of the Advanced Structural Design (07-STR-A5/16-CIV-B2) course, will assist with the Respondents’ rehabilitation.
The opportunity to work with a qualified engineer will provide the Member with an opportunity to observe and model the required practice skills and conduct acceptable to the engineering profession. Should the Member choose to, the completion of course work will not only remind him of his obligations as a professional engineer but correct those deficient skills that led to the unacceptable conduct.

(v) Maintenance of the reputation of the profession

The Panel finds that the jointly proposed penalty meets the principal object of the Act, reinforces the trust and confidence the public places on its members, and serves to maintain the reputation of the profession.
Section 2(3) of the Act provides that the principal objective of PEO is to regulate the practice of professional engineering in order that the public interest may be served and protected.
The Panel finds that the jointly proposed penalty will correct the harm the Respondents’ misconduct caused to the reputation of the engineering profession and reinforce the public’s trust as the disciplinary process not only served to deter and correct the unacceptable behaviour, but treated the Respondents fairly in the process, which is an essential component of meeting the principle objective of section 2(3) of the Act.
In conclusion, the Panel finds that upon application of the “public interest test” set out in Anthony-Cook to the jointly proposed penalty, and when viewed against previous PEO jurisprudence (such as Braunshtein, Sawchyn and Tessler) the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest as provided for in the Act. Accordingly, an order for the same will follow.

Order

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

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

d) 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

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