|
Editor's Note: APEGGA Council requires
that The PEGG publish Discipline Committee decisions. Following
are pertinent details of a stipulated order in a case involving
Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., and decided upon by the committee
on Jan. 13, 2003. Because this is a stipulated order, no formal
Discipline Committee hearing was necessary.
The Investigative Committee of APEGGA has concluded an investigation
into the conduct of Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., in relation to
services provided to MacGregor Real Estate Ltd. As a result
of its investigation and based on the evidence and information
brought to the attention of the Investigative Committee, the
committee proposed the following findings, which Mr. Hagstrom
accepted.
Agreed Statement of Facts
1. That at all material times, Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., was
a registered member of APEGGA in good standing.
2. That Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., submitted a proposal dated
Nov. 6, 2000, on behalf of Sabatini Earth Technologies Inc.
to MacGregor Real Estate Ltd. to do the geotechnical and hydrological
field testing and studies needed to obtain approval from the
County of Parkland for the development of a country residential
subdivision.
3. The proposal to MacGregor Real Estate Ltd. referred to
the requirements of Alberta Environment Protection, AEP's
Guidelines and the Water Act, implying that these would be
satisfied. Mr. Hagstrom has confirmed that the intent was
in fact that these would be satisfied.
4. Section 23 of the Water Act requires a subdivision proponent
to demonstrate "that the diversion of 1,250 cubic metres
of water per year . . . for each of the households within
the subdivision will not interfere with any [existing users]."
Alberta Environment's Report Requirements Under Section 23
of the Water Act for Subdivision Development (AEP's Guidelines),
dated Aug. 16, 1999, says, in part, "The required report
should be a culmination of a process that includes . . . a
preliminary pumping test . . .[and] . . .a constant rate pumping
test. . . ."
5. The methodology and work plan set out in the proposal referred
to made no reference to a pumping test. Mr. Hagstrom has confirmed
that he was not aware in November 2000 that a pumping test
would be needed.
6. The County of Parkland has withheld approval of the proposed
subdivision, in part or wholly because the Guidelines' requirements
pursuant to Section 23 of the Water Act have not been fulfilled.
Findings
1. That the conduct of Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., in the foregoing
respects constitutes unprofessional conduct and a violation
of Rule of Conduct No. 2 of the APEGGA Code of Ethics in that:
a. Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng.,'s knowledge of regulatory matters
relative to services to be provided was incomplete and not
up-to-date,
b. Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., did not have sufficient training/experience
relative to provincial requirements to advise the client
of the full scope of tests that would or could be required
to meet the project's objective, and the probable cost,
at a time when the client could be expected to be weighing
the question of whether or not to proceed, and
c. Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng.,'s combination of knowledge and
experience of standards required to be applied to hydrogeological
aspects of the client project does not meet professional
standards of a senior consultant acting independently in
responsible charge of such a project.
Order
That Merle Hagstrom, P.Eng., be reprimanded for unprofessional
conduct.
|
