Court upholds discipline of B.C. engineer who approved faulty crane foundation

Engineer discipline upheld

Photo: Chung Chow.

B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, B.C.

The B.C. Supreme Court recently reviewed and dismissed a petition by a professional engineer who was disciplined for recommending a set of key components for a crane when they were not fit for service.

In a Feb. 3 decision by Justice Veronica Jackson, the court said the professional regulator acted reasonably in disciplining Peter Gordon Kovacik, a professional engineer and co-founder of Kova Engineering Ltd.

Kovacik declined to comment to BIV, saying he may still be appealing further.

According to the decision, Kovacik signed and sealed an inspection report recommending a set of newly manufactured anchor stools for service when the anchor stools were not serviceable and when the weld repairs on those anchor stools had not been completed.

Anchor stools create a stable base for construction cranes.

A discipline committee panel of the Association of Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (EGBC) issued a decision on June 12, 2024 concluding that Kovacik had demonstrated unprofessional conduct. The panel found his conduct to be contrary to EGBC’s Code of Ethics.

Kovacik sought a judicial review of the panel’s decision, saying it was procedurally unfair because he didn’t have adequate notice due to a lack of detail in EGBC’s citation. The court said the citation was sufficiently detailed.

Kovacik also argued the panel relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence from a professional engineer, Ryan Stewart, who had previously inspected the anchor stools for PC Crane Services Ltd., found deficiencies in the welds and declined to certify them as serviceable.

About a week after Kovacik had signed and sealed the anchor stools as being serviceable, Stewart was performing an unrelated inspection at PC Crane Services and was “flabbergasted” to see the same anchor stools still there and apparently ready for use, the judgment said.

Stewart also testified to the panel that the owner of the anchor stools told him Kova Engineering had approved the anchor stools after he had declined to do so. He testified he showed the owner defects he observed on the anchor stools, and the owner confirmed to him the anchor stools were the same ones he had failed earlier.

Kovacik said this was improper evidence, but the court said hearsay “is not per se objectionable” in administrative proceedings.

Kovacik also argued the panel reversed the burden of proof because the panel said he had the option of calling the owner of PC Crane Services as a witness but didn’t do so. The court disagreed, saying there is a difference between the legal burden of proof and “evidential and tactical burdens.”

The court further concluded that the hearing and decision aligned with EGBC’s citation, rejecting Kovacik’s argument that the panel had improperly expanded its scope of inquiry.

Kovacik highlighted the submissions of EGBC’s counsel at the panel, saying they conceded the disciplinary hearing was not about whether there were cracks in the anchor stools. But the court said the citation governed the proceeding, and that the issue of serviceability was “at all times a live issue.”

The decision acknowledged a conflict in the evidence. Two people, neither of whom were professional engineers, had advised Kovacik of the anchor stools’ suitability for service over a FaceTime call and subsequent report, which Kovacik relied on. Kovacik also claimed Stewart was a “disgruntled ex-employee” of Kova Engineering, the court said.

But the court said the panel undertook a thorough analysis of Stewart's credibility, rejected these allegations and provided adequate reasons why they accepted one version and not the other.

"Mr. Kovacik's claims have been found baseless by both the EGBC review panel and the recent court decision. Beyond that, I have no further comment," Stewart told BIV.

The court concluded that Kovacik had not established that the panel’s decision was unreasonable. “The reasons reveal a clear and rational chain of analysis, and the outcome was justified in law and fact,” the court said.

The court also found Kovacik was aware when he signed off on the anchor stools that another professional engineer had previously inspected and rejected them.

The court disagreed with Kovacik’s claim that the panel’s finding departed from industry practice, saying regulatory bodies like EGBC determine professional standards, not industry practice.

No costs were sought or ordered.

When cranes are used in construction, they are connected to the foundation by anchor stools as a means of providing the stability needed for their safe operation, the judgment explained.

Anchor stools are single-use items, fabricated for each crane at each job site. The scope of practice of professional engineers includes inspecting the manufacture of, and welding performed on, anchor stools.

This is to ensure they meet the requirements of the design engineer’s specifications and the required applicable regulatory standards and are fit for service, the judgment said.