HOME    |     ABOUT APEGA    |     REGULATORY AFFAIRS    |     CONTACT US

october 2009 issue

 

 

next article |

previous article |

table of contents

 

 

Professional Practice
APEGGA Discipline Committee Decision


In the matter of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act and In the matter of the conduct of John Hugh Paterson, P.Eng.

Background
APEGGA’s Investigative Committee concluded an investigation into the conduct of John Hugh Paterson, P.Eng. (the “Member”) with respect to the review of the construction of a barn located at the Plain Lake Colony near Two Hills, Alberta.

The Member has freely and voluntarily admitted to unskilled practice and unprofessional conduct and has agreed with certain facts and findings. Under those circumstances, the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act permits the Investigative Committee to recommend an order that the committee considers appro-priate rather than referring the matter for a formal hearing.

A recommended order must be provided to a member of the Discipline Committee who has been designated to act as a case manager to review the order. If the case manager or the investigated person rejects the order, the matter must be referred to the Discipline Committee for a formal hearing.

Agreed Statement of Facts
The Investigative Committee has provided a statement of facts to which the committee and the Member have agreed. The agreed statement is reproduced, verbatim, in its entirety:

  1. At all material times, Mr. John Hugh Paterson, P.Eng. was registered as a Professional Engineer by APEGGA.

  2. Mr. Paterson was retained in August of 2002 by the Plain Lake Colony to undertake construction progress reviews of a hog barn as required by the Farm Credit Canada.

  3. Mr. Paterson was not retained to provide the design of the hog barn, nor was responsible for the design of any specific element of the hog barn.

  4. During the course of construction, Mr. Paterson was required to report on the general quality of the construction and whether the construction substantially complied with the designs provided by others.

  5. The structural design of the barn included engineered roof trusses, manufactured off-site and shipped for installation at the site. Mr. Paterson was not responsible for the design of the trusses, but was responsible to comment on their installation.

  6. The engineered drawings for the roof structure did not include a drawing specific to bracing of the roof trusses, but clear references to a bracing specification were made.

  7. In his October 24, 2002 inspection report, Mr. Paterson notes “Erection of roof trusses in process” and “Recommended additional bracing for trusses”. His report of December 5, 2002 notes “Structure (is) satisfactory in all respects.” His report of January 10, 2003 lists the comments “Construction complies with the intent of the plans and specifications.”

  8. On December 27, 2006, the roof of the barn collapsed. In the course of the inspection of the barn after it collapsed, it was noted that there was no cross-bracing installed between the roof trusses as required by the engineered plans prepared by the truss manufacturer.

  9. Mr Paterson, in reviewing the construction of the barn roof structure, failed to completely review the design, particularly the reference to the required bracing.

Conduct (Findings)
The Member has freely and voluntarily admitted that his conduct concerning the review of the construction of the barn located at the Plain Lake Colony constitutes unskilled practice of the engineering profession in the following respect:

He failed to undertake a complete and thorough review of the design documents for the project he was inspecting and supervising.

The Member has also freely and voluntarily admitted that his conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct in the following respect:

In failing to properly and thoroughly review the design drawings for the roof truss system for the hog barn in question, he failed in his professional responsibility to have proper regard in his work for the safety and welfare of all persons and for the physical environment affected by the work.

Orders
The Investigative Committee indicated that it believes this incident was isolated and not an indication of a “general lack of skill in the practice of engineering” or of a “general lack of professional conduct”. The Committee has recommended certain orders that it considers appropriate.

As the case manager designated by the Discipline Committee to review the matter, I agree with the recommended orders. During my discussion of the orders with the Member, he confirmed that he agrees with the recommended orders.

Therefore, in accordance with Section 52 of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act, this Order has the same force and effect as if it had been made by the Discipline Committee following a formal hearing.

  1. Mr. Paterson is to write and pass the National Professional Practice Exam within one (1) year of the date of this Order.

  2. Mr. Paterson is to pay a fine of $500.00 to APEGGA within one (1) year of the date of this Order.

  3. Should Mr. Paterson fail to comply with orders 1 and 2, above, his registration is to be suspended until such time as he does comply with the orders.

  4. This Order is to be published, with names, in The PEGG.

Dated this 26th day of August, 2009.