Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario

The Member and Holder faced disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct related to the preparation and submission of deficient Records of Site Condition (RSCs) to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The Member, who lacked specialized training in environmental matters, repeatedly submitted RSCs with significant errors, omissions, and falsified documents, leading to a prior conviction under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Member and Holder guilty of professional misconduct.

The penalty included a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and a permanent restriction prohibiting them from providing environmental engineering services.

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 Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario held a penalty hearing following a finding that the respondent member was guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered that the respondent's licence be revoked effective June 27, 2023.

The Committee further ordered that its findings and order be published with reasons and with the respondent's name in the official publication of the Association.

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 moving parties, a professional engineer and a certificate of authorization holder, requested a second adjournment of their discipline hearing after retaining new counsel who was unavailable for the scheduled June 2023 dates.

The moving parties also requested time to retain an expert and review disclosure.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment to September 2023, ordering that the new dates would be peremptory to the moving parties.

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 defendants, Hafiz M. Ahmad and Orbit Engineering Limited, brought a motion for the production of various electronic documents and their metadata from several third parties and the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion in part, ordering several third parties to provide the requested documents in their native electronic format with metadata by a specified date.

The Committee also ordered the Association to make best efforts to provide any expert reports it intended to rely on at the upcoming hearing.

The respondents, a professional engineer and her consulting firm, faced disciplinary proceedings for preparing inadequate and deficient design drawings for a detached garage roof that subsequently failed and sagged.

The respondents admitted to the facts and pled guilty to professional misconduct for failing to safeguard the public and comply with applicable codes.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-week suspension of the member's licence and the firm's Certificate of Authorization, and a restriction prohibiting them from providing structural engineering services until the member passes specific advanced structural examinations.

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.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member and his engineering firm regarding their assessment of a residential roof structure for a solar panel installation.

The member sealed deficient drawings prepared by a third party without visiting the site or verifying the information.

Following homeowner complaints about structural shifting, the member issued reports concluding the roof was structurally adequate without conducting a proper inspection of the attic or roof.

The member admitted to professional misconduct, including negligence and failing to safeguard life and property.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-week suspension, publication of the decision, and a requirement to complete specified examinations, failing which the member must practice under direct supervision.

Following a finding of professional misconduct for preparing inadequate design drawings for a retaining wall and failing to cooperate with the investigation, the Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing.

The member and his firm failed to attend.

The Committee found the member ungovernable due to serious technical failings, an uncaring attitude, and a complete lack of cooperation or remorse.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the member's licence and the firm's Certificate of Authorization, directed publication of a summary of the decision with names, and ordered the respondents to pay $25,000 in costs.

The Member, a limited licence holder, faced allegations of professional misconduct for making disparaging remarks, using obscene gestures, and filing vexatious complaints against other professionals.

The Member admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts, acknowledging his conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, and constituted harassment.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month licence suspension, publication of the decision with names, and a requirement to complete the National Professional Practice Examination.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct for offering engineering services to the public without a valid certificate of authorization and failing to cooperate with the Association's remedial requests.

The member admitted to the facts and pled guilty to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, publication of the decision, and $2,000 in costs.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a professional engineer and his firm for preparing inadequate design drawings for a retaining wall and failing to cooperate with the subsequent investigation.

The retaining wall, designed using a dead man system, failed shortly after construction, causing property damage and safety concerns.

The Discipline Committee found the respondents guilty of professional misconduct, concluding they were negligent, failed to safeguard property, failed to comply with applicable codes, and acted unprofessionally by ignoring the investigator's inquiries.