8 total
Engineer reprimanded and restricted from structural practice for deficient beam design; no suspension ordered.
The member and his firm faced professional discipline for signing and sealing deficient shop drawings and calculations for structural support beams, and for undertaking structural engineering work outside their competence.
The member admitted to the allegations of professional misconduct.
The Discipline Committee accepted the admission and found the member guilty.
In determining the penalty, the Committee considered the member's cooperation, out-of-pocket remediation of the errors, and changes to his practice.
The Committee ordered a reprimand, a restriction prohibiting the member from practicing structural engineering (with limited exceptions for platforms), and a limited practice review, but declined to impose a licence suspension.
Engineer reprimanded and suspended for one month for providing deficient structural drawings outside his competence.
The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for providing structural engineering services without a Certificate of Authorization and outside his area of competence.
The member provided deficient structural drawings for a residential renovation that posed grave safety risks.
The member admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts.
The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month licence suspension, a permanent restriction prohibiting him from practising structural engineering, and publication of the decision.
Engineer suspended for one month for falsely certifying structural work outside his area of expertise.
The member, an electrical engineer, signed and sealed a letter to a municipality certifying that structural work for a solar panel installation had been completed in accordance with engineering drawings.
In fact, the member had not inspected the work, and approximately half of the required attachment plates were missing, creating a potential risk to public safety.
The member admitted to professional misconduct.
The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month suspension of the member's licence and his company's Certificate of Authorization, publication of the decision, and a requirement that the member pass the Professional Practice Examination.
Appeal allowed; collective agreement bound the union and satisfied the trust agreement's definition.
The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that its collective agreement with the school board did not meet the definition of 'Collective Agreement' under a trust agreement.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the affiliated union was bound by the collective agreement under the Labour Relations Act, which satisfied the trust agreement's definition.
The collective agreement therefore governed the payments into the trust.
Human rights application alleging discrimination in professional engineering licensing dismissed summarily for lacking evidence.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age, marital status, and ethnic origin after the respondents refused to grant him a professional engineering license.
The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the denial of his license to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.
The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Judicial review of OLRB decisions excluding employees from a bargaining unit dismissed as reasonable.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions excluding certain employees from a bargaining unit during a union certification process.
The Board had excluded 11 drivers based on the 'greatest attachment' test and 15 employees under the 'office and clerical' exception.
The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.
The Court found that the Board reasonably applied the greatest attachment test given the agreed-upon geographical limitation of the bargaining unit, and reasonably concluded that the disputed employees' duties were administrative in nature.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review of OLRB decision dismissed; employer not bound by unions' agreement on overlapping employee lists.
The applicant unions sought judicial review of an interim decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding card-based certification.
The employer had provided lists of employees for two prospective bargaining units with 24 overlapping names.
The unions agreed between themselves on how to allocate the overlapping workers and argued the employer was bound by this agreement.
The Board ruled the employer was not a party to the agreement and ordered the employer to provide an unqualified list.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and consistent with its jurisprudence.
Judicial review dismissed; medical complaints committee owes limited procedural fairness to complainants during screening.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a Complaints Committee's finding of no misconduct by his treating physicians.
The applicant argued that the Committee breached procedural fairness by withholding the identity of an independent assessor, thereby preventing cross-examination.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Committee exercises a screening function and owes a limited duty of procedural fairness to complainants, which does not include the right to cross-examine an assessor.
