Other Tribunals - PEO

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a professional engineer and an engineering firm regarding the failed design of a critical structural component of the Nipigon River Bridge.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct, acknowledging they failed to verify critical design assumptions and provided inadequate oversight of a junior engineer.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a four-week licence suspension for the engineer, a requirement for the firm to implement a Quality Assurance Plan, and $200,000 in costs.

The respondent, a former professional engineer, admitted to professional misconduct for certifying a structurally inadequate railing system design that failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee also accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, publication with names, and, should the respondent seek reinstatement, a two-month suspension and a restriction prohibiting him from providing structural engineering services until he passes a specified examination.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member and his engineering firm for submitting incorrect and altered calibration certificates for vibration monitoring units at two construction sites.

The member admitted to the allegations, acknowledging that the conduct amounted to negligence and unprofessional conduct under Regulation 941.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it reasonable and consistent with prior cases.

The member and the firm were reprimanded, the member's licence was suspended for one month, and the findings were ordered to be published with names.

The respondents, a professional engineer and her consulting firm, faced discipline for providing deficient structural drawings for a patio that failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code, failing to maintain professional liability insurance, and failing to cooperate with the Association's investigation.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the respondents guilty of professional misconduct.

The penalty included a permanent reprimand, practice restrictions requiring direct supervision by another engineer, and practice inspections.

The respondents, a licensed professional engineer and his engineering firm, faced discipline for providing deficient structural engineering drawings and allowing an unlicensed employee to hold himself out as a professional engineer.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct, including negligence and undertaking work outside their competence.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension of the member's licence and the firm's Certificate of Authorization, and a restriction prohibiting them from providing structural engineering services.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought a discipline proceeding against the Member for falsifying HVAC testing reports.

The Member admitted to the misconduct in an Agreed Statement of Facts but failed to attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a five-month licence suspension, publication of the decision, and a requirement to complete the National Professional Practice Examination.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario alleged that the respondent engineer and his firm committed professional misconduct by preparing structurally inadequate design plans for three residential projects.

The plans lacked necessary details, failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code, and included elements at risk of collapse.

The respondents, whose expertise was in mechanical rather than structural engineering, admitted to the misconduct via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a $1,000 fine, and a condition that the respondent must practice under supervision if his recently resigned licence is ever reinstated.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct after directing an unlicensed employee to construct a concrete arch without a building permit, design drawings, or supervision.

The arch later collapsed onto a dump truck, resulting in a fatal accident.

The Member admitted to the facts and pleaded guilty to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month license suspension, publication of the decision, a $5,000 fine, and $15,000 in costs.

The respondents, a professional engineer and his firm, faced discipline for professional misconduct related to the design and review of a residential deck project.

They admitted to signing and sealing sketches with errors, failing to conduct a site visit before issuing a general review report, and failing to update the report.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, finding the respondents guilty of negligence and unprofessional conduct.

The penalty included a reprimand, a 10-day suspension, a requirement to pass the National Professional Practice Examination, and publication of the decision.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought a disciplinary proceeding against a professional engineer and his engineering corporation.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct for signing and sealing a deficient review report regarding foundation waterproofing without conducting a site inspection.

The report was relied upon by the City of Hamilton to close a permit.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding the respondents guilty of negligence and unprofessional conduct.

The respondents were reprimanded, fined $1,000, and the engineer was required to successfully complete the National Professional Practice Examination within 14 months, failing which his licence would be restricted to practising under direct supervision.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct for producing a deficient geotechnical engineering report that duplicated large portions of another firm's report, and for providing engineering services without a Certificate of Authorization.

The member admitted to the facts and pled guilty to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month licence suspension, and a restriction prohibiting the member from providing geotechnical engineering services.

The member was found guilty of professional misconduct after being convicted of criminal fraud over $5,000 against his employer.

The member had fabricated quotes and invoices, misappropriating over $446,000.

At the penalty hearing, which the member did not attend, the Discipline Committee revoked his license and ordered the decision published with reasons, citing the size and duration of the fraud, the serious breach of trust, and the need for general deterrence.

The moving parties requested a third adjournment of their discipline hearing because they retained new counsel who was unavailable on the scheduled dates.

The Discipline Committee denied the request, noting that the previous adjournment had been made peremptory to the moving parties, they had known about the peremptory nature of the dates for a month, and the hearing was still three months away.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member and his engineering firm for professional misconduct related to the design of Open Web Steel Joists for a school addition.

The member, who lacked expertise in steel joist design, submitted drawings and calculations containing numerous errors and failing to comply with the Ontario Building Code and applicable standards.

The member admitted to the allegations, acknowledging he undertook work for which he was not qualified and failed to maintain the standards of a reasonable and prudent practitioner.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and a restriction prohibiting the member from providing structural engineering services until he passes specific examinations.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for preparing deficient structural drawings and providing professional engineering services without a valid Certificate of Authorization.

The respondent admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts, acknowledging that the drawings lacked material data, cited an outdated Building Code, and failed to make reasonable provision for the safeguarding of the public.

The Discipline Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding it did not meet the high threshold for rejection established in Anthony-Cook.

The respondent was reprimanded, his licence was suspended for two months, he was fined $2,500, and a restriction was placed on his licence requiring the successful completion of structural engineering examinations.

The Member and Holder faced professional discipline allegations regarding their review and approval of inadequate design drawings and hydraulic calculations for a building's fire protection system.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts in which the Member and Holder admitted to professional misconduct for failing to maintain reasonable engineering standards and failing to comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, remedial coursework, and practice restrictions.

The Committee also ordered that the decision be published with names to serve the goals of openness, transparency, and general deterrence.

The member was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the PEO.

The member had previously pleaded guilty to criminal fraud over $5,000 for fabricating invoices and misappropriating $446,074.81 from his employer.

The Committee found that the criminal conviction was relevant to his suitability to practise and that his actions constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be scheduled.

The moving parties, a professional engineer and a certificate of authorization holder, requested an adjournment of their discipline hearing because the engineer was out of the country with limited internet access.

The Association opposed the request but provided alternative dates if granted.

The Discipline Committee reluctantly granted the adjournment to the alternative dates, noting the engineer's prior unresponsiveness to scheduling attempts.

The moving party, a professional engineer, sought a stay of discipline proceedings against him, arguing that a 4.5-year delay in the Association's investigation constituted an abuse of process.

The charges arose from a 2017 workplace fatality involving a collapsed arch.

Applying the Supreme Court's framework in Abrametz, the Discipline Committee majority found the delay was inordinate given the investigation's lack of complexity.

However, the Committee unanimously concluded that the moving party failed to establish significant hearing or personal prejudice caused by the delay.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, as the public interest in having the allegations heard on their merits outweighed any harm caused by the delay.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member and his certificate of authorization holder for professional misconduct.

The member, whose expertise was in structural engineering, designed a septic system that failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code and was outside his area of competence.

The matter proceeded on an uncontested basis with an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted the joint submission, ordering a reprimand, a three-week suspension, and a restriction prohibiting the member from providing environmental engineering services until he passes specific examinations.