APEGA Discipline Committee Decision Case No.

: 12-015-FH report
Friday, April 8, 2016
Dr. Denis Onen
ENGG 513 Winter 2016

Introduction
1

This report will summarize and analyze APEGA Discipline Committee

Decision Case No.: 12-015-FH. This report will summarize key stakeholders
and persons involved in the incident. It will summarize the background of
professional engineer Mr. Clark in building an inaccurate report for a concrete
sample and the charges were imposed on him as a result of his misconduct.
The process for hearings and panel discussions by the Discipline Committee
are explained followed by the conclusion of the orders that Clark must follow.
With support from the code of ethics and definition of professional
misconduct, a detailed analysis and reflection on the case concludes that
Clark faced professional misconduct and is guilty of breaking codes one and
two of the APEGA Code of Ethics. As well, there are suggestions of actions
Clark could have undertaken to avoid the charges he faced.
Stakeholders
John William Clark
-

professional engineer being investigated because charges brought on

to him for professional misconduct and violation of code of ethics

Baron Real Estate Development

-

The company from which Clark accepted the assignment from

Nichols Environmental (Canada) Ltd.

-

Clarks employer and the company which was contracted to asses

concrete floor

Mr. Slawsky
-

The owner of the property where concrete was to be assessed

Mr. Brian Kennedy (P.Eng)

-

contracted structural engineer for renovations and the engineer who

filed a the complaint to APEGA

Case Summary
Mr. Slawsy, the owner of a property, contracted John William Clark of
Nicholas Environmental (Canada) Ltd. to assess if the concrete floor in the
building was adequate to serve another tenant. The previous tenant had
used the building to store a large commercial freezer and hard-wheeled fork
lifts were used to move the material in the freezer. The concrete floor needed
to be evaluated on whether it was sufficient to hold the belongings of a
potential tenant. The potential tenant wasted to use the space to store
rubber tired vehicles, weighing up to 16000kg (hydrovac truck).
Clark obtained samples of the floor and summarized his findings to Slawsy.
He found that the concrete can withstand a maximum pressure of 42.4 MPa
and the largest pressure the truck can make is 350 psi. This would mean a
safety factor of 18.4 times. Since the safety factor was 18.4 and not 3-5,
Slawsky did not do additional analysis and agreed for the tenant to move in
for renovations. Upon obtaining access, the tenant hired structural engineer
Mr. Brian Kennedy. Kenney was provided with Clarks letter on concrete
analysis and forwarded a complaint to APEGA regarding the analysis after
consulting with other professional engineers.
Clark was charged with deficient structural inspection. During the hearing,
the Panel heard from Slawsky, Kennedy, Walters, Plecash, and Clark. Walters
testified as an expert structural engineer and concluded that the evaluation
of the concrete slab was not based on flexural strength and interactions with
soil beneath, the analysis was done with minimum standards of care, Clark
only followed client instructions rather than follow standards of engineer, and
a complete analysis was not completed before arriving at a conclusion. Clark
was hostile in his defense.
The panel gave Clark two charges. Charge one finds that Clark did an
insufficient inspection in that the inspection did not attempt to predict future
performance of the slab based on past performance, ignored flexural and
shear stresses, and did not predict ultimate load and therefore; Clark
conducted unskilled practise of the profession. Charge two finds that Clark
undertook the assignment without having proper expertise of the subject
matter and Clarks testimony to be unreliable. Therefore, he violated Rule 2
of APEGAs code of ethics.
The Panel was provided with more supplementary material and after close
analysis of the material, they concluded the following orders to Clark. A letter
of reprimand was issued to Clark. Clark must not engage in structural
engineering practise until he has either completed he APEGA Technical Exam
for Elementary structural Design or a Structural Design course offered by the
University of Alberta. In addition, Clark must complete the National
3

Professional Practise Exam and pay a portion of the hearing within 12

months. If Clark fails to do so, his APEGA license will be suspended if and
cancelled if not completed within 12 months. Furthermore, this report will be
published in The PEG magazine.

Reflection and Opinion

Professional Misconduct is defined as any conduct of a professional member
in the opinion of the Discipline Committee or the Appeal Board is detrimental
to the best interest of the public, contravenes a code of ethics, harms or
tends to harm the standing of the profession, or displays a lock of knowledge
or skill in the profession. This definition of professional misconduct includes
breaking any of the codes of ethics and numbers one and two of the code are
noted:
1. Professional engineers and geoscientists shall, in their areas of
practice, hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public,
and have regard for the environment.
2. Professional engineers and geoscientists shall undertake only work
that they are competent to perform by virtue of their training and
experience.
Based on my understanding of the above definitions, Mr. Clark violated
numbers one and two of the code of ethics. Mr. Clark neglected the safety of
his client, Mr. Slawsky, when Clark neglected to do a thorough analysis of the
concrete sample and overestimated the safety factor. This negligence could
have resulted in harm of the next tenant should the concrete give way as a
result of the bearing pressure.
Clark also breached the second code of ethics by undertaking work that he
was not qualified to do. Although Clark displayed basic structural
understanding of structural analysis of concrete slab, he was not qualified to
perform the task he had taken at the time he had accepted the project.
Although Clark explained in his testimony he had undertaken the proper
steps to arrive at his conclusion, the actual results and time frame for the
project contradicted his claims. Although Clark consulted senior structural
engineers, it was for another purpose and Clark himself did not have enough
understanding to take on the project himself. Clark did not account for
flexural stress, soil conditions underneath, or use past performance of the
concrete to predict future performance when he was doing the actual
analysis of the slab, which is something a trained structural engineer would
have done. Had he actually consulted a structural engineer or familiarized
himself with how to accurately conduct an analysis on the concrete slab, he
4

could have avoided professional misconduct. To learn the material needed,

he could have taken a course or read through material relating to analysis of
concrete. In addition, he could have delegated the task to a professional
engineer specializing in that structural or concrete analysis.
Clark had only done an analysis of the core breaks as Slawsky told him to
although Clark that simple test was not sufficient to accurately determine the
factor of safety for the concrete slab. It was Clarks profession responsibility
to go beyond what the client asked and do a thorough analysis in order to
more accurately determine what the client wanted. Had Clark done this, he
would have avoided disciplinary action by finding that the factor of safety
was 2.8 rather than 18. In addition, Slawsky instructed that further analysis
be done if the factor of safety was 3-5. By not completing the first analysis
accurately, Clark also failed to meet the expectations of his client.
References
APEGA Discipline Committee Decision. (2014, April 9). The PEG. Retrieved
April 12, 2016, from https://www.apega.ca/assets/peg/fall2014.pdf
APEGA. (2013, February). Guideline for Ethical Practice [Volume 2.2].
Canada, Province of Alberta, Office Consolidation. (2000). Engineering and
Geoscience Professionals Act. Alberta Queen's Printer.