APEGS Member Disciplined for Professional Misconduct

A Professional Engineer member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan pled not guilty to one count of professional misconduct before a hearing panel of the Discipline Committee on March 23, 2022.

The allegations with respect to the conduct of the member were as follows:

The member did commit acts of professional misconduct, contrary to the provisions of subsections 30(a), 30(b) and 30(c) of The Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act (the Act), in that their actions were harmful to the best interests of the public or the members, harmed the standing of the profession and were a breach of The Engineering and Geoscience Professions Regulatory Bylaws, the particulars of which are below.

The member prepared a drawing bearing their professional seal for the deck built and attached to their home, contrary to subsections 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(b) of The Engineering and Geoscience Professions Regulatory Bylaws which requires licensees to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and offer services, advise on or undertake professional assignments only in areas of their competence and practise in a careful and diligent manner.

Particulars:

The complainant made an offer for purchase of the member’s property in a municipality of Saskatchewan. In promoting the sale of their home, the member represented the deck attached to the home as being professionally engineered. The complainant subsequently purchased the home and took possession. A drawing of the deck bearing the seal of the member was obtained by the purchaser of the home. Following the sale of the home an engineering consultant was engaged to inspect and report on the deck. The consultant declined to certify the structure as being suitable for its intended service.

The hearing panel made the following findings of fact:

1. Member, P.Eng. prepared a sketch for the deck attached to their home.
2. Member, P.Eng. applied their Professional Engineer seal to the deck sketch that they had prepared.
3. Member, P.Eng. lost control of the deck sketch that they had prepared and sealed and the deck sketch came into the possession of the purchaser of their home.

The panel determined that these actions by the member were in breach of section 21 of the Act governing the use of professional seals by members. Subsections 21(1) and 21(4) of the Act provides that professional seals may only be applied to final drawings. By applying a professional seal to an incomplete sketch, the member breached section 21 of the Act. These actions constituted professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(c) of the Act which provides that a breach of the Act or the Bylaws is professional misconduct.

Counsel for the Investigation Committee suggested that the issue of delay was relevant to this case. The member advised the hearing panel that their health had been compromised by the delay in having the matter heard. Counsel for the Investigation Committee advised that there must be significant prejudice for a matter to be stayed because of inordinate delay. Other remedies to deal with delay include reduced fines and orders for costs. The panel found that the delay in this case was not so unreasonable to warrant a stay of proceedings. However, the panel considered the issue of delay in dealing with the disposition of the matter.

In the Submission as to Disposition, the Investigation Committee cited Casey, Regulation of Professions, 2005 – Release 1, Section 14.2, Purposes of Sentencing, pages 14-5 to 14-9 and Salte, The Law of Professional Regulation, 2015 – Chapter 8.2, Penalty – Principles, 233-246.

The hearing panel acknowledged that the fundamental purpose of sentencing for professional misconduct is the protection of the public.

The hearing panel also considered the following factors when determining its sentence:

• nature and gravity of conduct proven.
• effect on the victim.
• advantage gained, or to be gained, by the member.
• the number of times the offending conduct occurred.
• the possibility of remediating or rehabilitating the member.
• need to ensure the public’s confidence in the integrity of the profession.
• risk to public safety.
• specific deterrence of the member from engaging in further misconduct.
• general deterrence of other members of the profession.
• punishment of the offender.
• denunciation by society of the conduct.
• range of sentences in other cases.

The hearing panel also considered mitigating circumstances:

• age and experience of the member at the time the action(s) occurred.
• previous character of the member.
• history of the member’s professional conduct.
• member’s acknowledgement of responsibility and steps taken to disclose and redress the wrong.
• effect on the member of criminal or other sanctions or penalties.
• effect of the proposed penalty on the member.
• family and personal circumstances.
• the delay in bringing the matter before the hearing panel.

The hearing panel ordered as follows:

1. That the member is hereby reprimanded for professional misconduct.
2. That the member shall complete and provide proof of completion of the APEGS Law and Ethics Seminar.
3. That the member shall have 12 months from the date of the Decision and Order to complete the Law and Ethics Seminar.
4. That the Decision and Order shall be published on the APEGS website and in The Professional Edge, without names.

Failure to comply with any of the foregoing orders of the Hearing Panel would result in the member being suspended from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan and remain suspended until there is compliance with the orders.