In the Matter of a Complaint Pursuant to the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act on December 1, 2022, a Discipline Committee Panel of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick (APEGNB) met with respect to a Complaint involving the design and construction of two buildings for commercial purpose (one being an A2 classification).
Three issues of alleged professional misconduct, including negligence, in the practice of Professional Engineering were identified as:
- affixing of an Engineer’s seal to an architectural design for an A2 building in violation of the Guidelines for Development and Maintenance of the Professional Relationship Between Architects and Engineers (Guidelines);
- affixing of an Engineer’s seal to designs which do not conform to the National Building Code of Canada‘s standards regarding occupant load for the purpose of avoiding installing a fire alarm system; and
- providing advice to a client that submission of designs to the Office of the Fire Marshal was not required.
The Committee’s focus in this matter is whether the Guidelines were breached.
In analyzing this issue, the Committee considered that the Guidelines are a professional standard and not optional or suggestive in nature. In this case the question of if there has been a breach of the Guidelines will depend on if:
- there is an exception for an architect in the design of an A2 structure; and
- the exception (if it exists) applies to the Respondent.
The Committee’s review of the Guidelines (specifically Table 1) leads to a determination that there is an exception.
The Guidelines state that an engineer is “qualified” to perform services in the practice of architecture on “general review” (Note: nothing in Section 6{c} prohibits the application of a stamp).
In this matter, the Committee accepted that the engineer has considerable experience in design and that their engagement was exclusively for the purpose of the client obtaining a building permit and thus a general review.
Decision:
Based on the wording of the Guidelines, the Committee is unable to conclude that the engineer breached a professional standard or that they should be subject to professional discipline.
The Guidelines clearly contemplate an exception to the mandatory involvement of architects and engineers and absent clarification to the contrary, the interpretation of the engineer is reasonable.
This decision, however, does not mean that the Committee would come to the same conclusion if the scope of the work or the qualifications of an engineer were different from the facts it heard in this matter. Put another way, should an engineer engage in a different scale of work with different or insufficient qualifications, discipline may result.
For the reasons outlined above, the Complaint is dismissed and a summary of the reasons, without reference to the Respondent’s identity or geographic location, are directed to be published in the Association’s publication and website.
Darryl Ford, P.Eng.
Chair, Discipline Committee