REGINA - A Saskatchewan engineer has been fined for issues stemming from professional misconduct and incompetence related to a project he was working on as the structural engineer.
The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (APEGS) issued a $10,000 fine and a restriction of practice to Veto Varma, P.Eng., after a hearing panel found Varma guilty of three charges of professional incompetence and professional misconduct.
The charges against Varma arose from work performed while operating as Jaya Engineering and were related to deficiencies in steel beams, deficiencies in helical pile design, and the issue of compliance letters.
The panel found that Varma, operating as Jaya Engineering:
- Issued structural drawings for steel beams that were undersized, based on loads prescribed by the National Building Code of Canada;
- Failed to ensure that helical pile design was finalized and designed to support the loads prescribed by the National Building Code of Canada; and
- Improperly issued sealed compliance letters certifying that completed structural and foundation work substantially complied with plans and specifications and with National Building Code of Canada standards.
As outlined in the hearing panel’s decision and order of July 11, 2024, Varma will receive a written reprimand for professional incompetence, professional misconduct, and breaches of the Code of Ethics. Within 12 months from the date of the panel’s decision, Varma must pay a $10,000 fine and successfully complete the APEGS online Law and Professionalism Course and Professional Practice Examination.
Varma must also practice under a licence limiting unsupervised practice to single residential structures and requiring supervision by a professional engineer approved by the APEGS registrar for any practice involving commercial projects. Varma may seek removal of this licence restriction upon providing proof satisfactory to the registrar of the equivalent of 12 months of supervised commercial work.
Through his legal counsel, Varma pleaded guilty to the allegations in the case.
In the decision, the project in question was noted to be a condominium being built.
It was noted in the report, "if remediation [work] had not occurred, Varma, P. Eng.'s failure to inspect the project had the potential to put future owners of the condominium at significant risk."
The decision indicated that between Feb. 2012 and January 2014, Varma provided regular compliance letters in which he represented he physically attended at the project site to inspect the structural design and construction, but in fact he did not.
He also didn't raise any concerns with the structural design or construction in any of his compliance letters.
The firm BBK was hired to provide a structural analysis of the existing building around Sept. 2019. They reported the project failed to meet the National Building Code of Canada standards and presented a public safety risk.
BBK wrote to APEGS advising them of their concerns about the structural deficiencies of the project.
In response to APEGS' investigation, Varma stated that while he was the structural engineer responsible for the project, there was a misunderstanding as to the responsibility for the final design of the screw piles. "[Varma] believed that the third-party screw pile contractor hired by the general contractor would be responsible for an updated engineered design of the foundation system."
But the third-party screw pile contractor reported that it was not responsible for the design of the screw pile system and was not retained by the general contractor for this purpose. As a result, it used prior draft drawings that were under-designed.
The report indicated that Varma failed to confirm the responsibility for the foundation design. As well, he failed to attend and inspect the foundation at the project site, yet signed off on compliance letters, incorrectly assuming that the draft design had been modified to sufficient standards and implemented.
Consequently, due to "[Varma's] failures, the insufficient foundation system was constructed based upon insufficient design and without being inspected."
