ELI4110 Project

docx

School

Western University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

ELI4110

Subject

Civil Engineering

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MegaSnow8957

Engineering is a vast profession which drives the technological advancement of our modern world. Everything we use around us, was either made by nature or it was made by man. But when things are made by man, there is room for error and in some cases, the error can lead to catastrophes. Hence why many technical professions have a set or rules and litigations in place to ensure all errors are diminished to the absolute minimum (Ethical and professional responsibilities of an engineer n.d.). However, some errors persist and can lead to horrible outcomes. Similar errors will be discussed in this document below as we analyze two P. Eng licencees Mr. Saad Al-Dabbagh, and Mr. Victor Wilcox, and how their actions led to such errors Article 1 Mr. Saad Al-Dabbagh, P.Eng., is a member of the PEO (Professional Engineers of Ontario) since 2014, and conducted his duties under A&A Environmental Consultants Inc. A&A was approached by Landmark Capital Ltd. as the Developer to oversee a geotechnical investigation for a possible development plan located in Whitby, Ontario. The proposed development was a three-storey townhouse block with about 19 units alongside a basement, and underground parking. The investigation was proposed in January 2017 and the following month, A&A drilled four boreholes at the site to begin their investigation. By March 2017, Geotechnical Report #1 was compiled, which was later sealed and signed by Mr. Al-Dabbagh. An environmental consultant, Thomas Demers, also signed the report. This report stated that the boreholes were advanced using solid stem augers, which is inaccurate as in the logs, they state they used hollow stem augers. This caused the development to be changed to a seven-storey residential building with 3 underground parking spaces as it was deemed that the augers were sufficient. Following this, Geotechnical Report #2 was compiled and dated the same as Geotechnical Report #1. This

report was sealed and signed by Mr. Al-Dabbagh and dated to be in March 2017; however, the report was prepared in June 2018. The second report carried the same error throughout as well and was later submitted to the Developer of the Town of Whitby, who contracted Golder Associates Ltd. to review the document. Golder passed on 58 comments about the report back to the Developer on June 30, 2018. A&A confronted the comments and by October 10 th , 2018, Geotechnical Report #3 was compiled; signed by Mr. Al-Dabbagh and Mr. Demers, and sealed by Mr. Al-Dabbagh. Geotechnical Report #3 also carried the mistake about the boreholes from the first report. Golder reviewed the new report and found that A&A had not resolved 30 out of the 58 comments made by Golder. Golder later noted deficiencies in the methods used to compile the reports and stated A&A omitted relevant information that was still unresolved even after so many report alterations. Following this, A&A prepared Geotechnical Report #4 was prepared on November 29 th , 2018. The Developer reviewed the report and contacted municipality of Whitby, who stated that they did not feel comfortable using A&A’s services on the file and had the Developer contact a different consultant who later prepared a new report. Near late January 2019, the Developer filed a complaint to the PEO. PEO contacted 3 rd party experts to review A&A’s work and provide a new report called the Expert Report. This report concluded that A&A alongside Mr. Al-Dabbagh failed to identify and correct the mistakes carried out in all the reports and their iterations. They concluded that Mr. Al-Dabbagh and A&A failed to meet the standard of care expected of them. Upon this, Mr. Al-Dabbagh and A&A accepted their failures. Thus, concluding that Mr. Al- Dabbagh and A&A are guilty of professional misconduct. From the conduct displayed by Mr. Al-Dabbagh and A&A, it is evident they both had a duty to the public welfare and paramount, which they disobeyed as the designs were not up to the

necessary standards, thus being in a clear violation of Ontario Reg. 941, S.77, Article 2.i. The duty of care that is owed to the public was completely neglected as the development was not a safe development to begin with. It can also be said that Mr. Al-Dabbagh and A&A also were in direct violation of Ontario Reg. 941, S.77, Article 6, which states that a practitioner must collaborate with other professional practitioners. The reports created by Mr. Al-Dabbagh were signed and stamped over and over again, while the comments made about the issues in the reports were left mostly unresolved. Due to these circumstances, Mr. Al-Dabbagh and A&A are guilty of professional misconduct. According to the Ontario Reg 941, S.72, Mr. Al-Dabbagh and co. have violated S.72(2)(a), (d), and (j). In the profession, any act of professional misconduct is not taken lightly. Negligence in engineering can be very harmful. According to the NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers), engineers have a paramount duty to protect the public’s wellbeing (Alex C. Michalos & P. Maurine Hatch, 1970). The acts displayed by Mr. Al-Dabbagh violated this core principle and therefore put the public’s welfare in danger, as well as endangered the honor and integrity of the profession. . I strongly believe that the existence of these codes and rules is necessary as it prevents the occurrence of major catastrophes. I do believe as we approach an era of technological advancement. These codes will be subject to updates as the future advances and technology continues to emerge. Article 2

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Mr. Victor F Wilcox was a member of the PEO and was part of the Trade Engineering Company Ltd. Cowden-Woods Design Builders Ltd. were approached by the owner of Barrie U- Store to expand an existing three-building storage facility in Barrie, Ontario. Mr. Wilcox and his company Trade (Wilcox and Trade hereonafter), were approached by Cowden Woods for their services. In June 1994, Mr. Wilcox signed and stamped the building drawings that were drafted by Cowden-Woods and were later submitted to the City of Barrie. After obtaining the permit, the construction had elapsed. In march 1995, an engineer notice a flaw in the drawings regarding the doors due to structural issues. The engineer also noted that the drawings did not have sufficient information on them either. Later, Elstiwin Holdings Inc. contacted Wilcox and Trade to produce drawings for a proposed multi-unit commercial building in Barrie, Ontario. The proposed building was a one-storeey building planned to be a wholesale warehouse. By July 1994, Wilcox and Trade signed and stamped the drawings for the proposed warehouse and shortly after, the City of Barrie, issues a permit to proceed with the project. Another engineer did express their concerns regarding the quality of the drawings during the tendering process. Again, an independent structural engineer was tasked by the PEO to review the drawings and multiple code violations were found. The drawings were missing a multitude of information, ranging from such as no indication of the diaphragm mechanism, roof loadings, no geotechnical information, etc. Upon further inspection, the designs were determined to be severely flawed and under-detailed. All these arising concerns forced PEO to host a Notice of Hearing to discuss the allegations of professional misconduct against Wilcox and Trade. Further analysis of this case reveals that Mr. Wilcox was not competent as he lacked the skill and judgement to rightfully sign off on projects. This is a direct violation of the Ontario

Reg. 941, S.77(1)(v) which states that a practitioner must act at all times with a high level of competence. Mr. Wilcox and co. are also in violation of S.77(1)(ii), and (iii); which states that a practitioner must act at all times with a high fidelity to public needs and devotion to high ideals for the integrity of the profession, respectively. Wilcox and co., continually approved off drawings that were not up-to the needed standards and never considered the implications of their actions In consequence, Wilcox and co. are in direct violation of Ontario Reg 941, S.72(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), and (j) (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 941: GENERAL 2018). All these articles conclude to a similar idea: any practitioner must be competent enough to do the work at hand, and must complete that work with utmost regard towards the welfare of the public and the profession. In my opinion as an engineer-in-training, I strongly support the professional’s stance on this type of behaviour as they deem it to be unacceptable. Incompetence is a serious concern as many of the worst technological disasters have occurred due to incompetence (L’ingénieur et les attestations de conformité – OIQ, n.d.). As discussed in class, the reason behind the failure of the space shuttle Challenger was due to a design flaw in the O-ring, thus displaying extreme incompetence. (Challenger disaster 2023). I strongly believe that the existence of these codes and rules is necessary as it prevents the occurrence of major catastrophes. I do believe as we approach an era of technological advancement. These codes may be updated to encapsulate more specific scenarios and help pass sound judgment. To conclude, both Mr. Al-Dabbagh and Mr. Victor Wilcox showed traits of negligence, incompetence, and chose to neglect the duty of care owed to the public. This is an excellent example of how these grand errors can emerge but due to the existence of codes such as Ontario Reg 941, there errors and ones responsible can be held accountable for their actions.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

References Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2023, January 21). Challenger disaster . Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved February 16, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/event/Challenger-disaster Ethical and professional responsibilities of an engineer . (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2023, from https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/me170/sp2020/Ethical%20and%20Professional %20Responsibilities.pdf Liability of employed engineers . Liability of Employed Engineers | National Society of Professional Engineers. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2023, from https://www.nspe.org/resources/professional-liability/liability-employed-engineers L’ingénieur et les attestations de conformité - OIQ . (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2023, from https://www.oiq.qc.ca/wp- content/uploads/documents/DCAP/chroniques_PLAN/ethique_deontologie/AttestationsCo nformite.pdf R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 941: GENERAL . Ontario.ca. (2018, November 19). Retrieved February 15, 2023, from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900941

ELI4110 Project

Related Documents