Engineering Ethics Paper

ECOR 4995, Professional Practice

ESSAY #2, A One Page Memo
(Due Thursday, March 17 by 12:00 noon)
The following piece was taken from PEO’s Engineering Dimensions,
January/February 2020, Volume 41, No. 1, Gazette, pages 25 – 33.
The action of the PEO Discipline Committee concerning a complaint regarding
the conduct of Dr. Anthony Ikpong, P.Eng. is reported.
You will note four allegations;
Allegation #1: 72(2)(j), Disgraceful, Dishonourable or Unprofessional Conduct.
Allegation #2: 72(2)(n), Harassment.
Ikpong is found guilty of Professional Misconduct in both allegations and
charged under Regulation 941, Sections as indicated.
Allegation #3: 28(3)(a), Incompetent – not established.
Allegation #4: 72(2)(a), Negligence – not proven.
CONCLUSION (PAGE 33)
“Having found Dr. Ikpong guilty of professional misconduct under sections 72(2)(j) and (n) of
Ontario Regulation 941 of the act, the panel will invite submissions from the parties on penalty.”
This is the topic of your memo, Suggested Penalty for Dr. Anthony Ikpong, P.Ehg.
I, Carl Kropp, am to be the recipient of the memo. I will expect well-reasoned arguments to
support your recommendation.
I do not expect you to research previous decisions of the Discipline Committee
concerning penalties. Usual penalties include, (more than one may be
applied.):
 Suspension of license for a specific time (needs to be specified}
 Pay a fine ($ need to be specified)
 Letter of reprimand
 Publication in the PEO Gazette
 Note kept on members file (time needs to be specified)
 Pass PEO Professional Practice Exam
 Assigning costs to the defendant
See Section 4.Essays, Essay #2, pages 13 and 14 of the course Syllabus.
Note the grading rubric on page14
engineeringdimensions.ca
DECISION AND REASONS
InthematterofahearingundertheProfessionalEngineersAct,R.S.O.1990,c.P.28;andinthematter
of a complaint regarding the conduct of DR. ANTHONY IKPONG, P.ENG., a member of the Association
of Professional Engineers of Ontario.
This panel of the Discipline Committee convened
in Toronto to hear this matter. The hearing lasted
eight days over a six-month period and was mostly
conducted electronically. The hearing involved
a number of witnesses called by the prosecution.
Dr. Anthony Ikpong, P.Eng., represented himself
throughout and testified on his own behalf. The
panel invited and received the parties’ closing submissions in writing over the months of June, July
and August 2017. In this decision, the panel refers
only to the facts, evidence and submissions relevant
to its decision on each of the four allegations set
out in paragraph 23 of the Amended Statement of
Allegations reproduced below.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The Amended Statement of Allegations dated
October 17, 2016, sets out the following allegations
against the member and corresponding particulars:
1. At all material times, Ikpong was a professional
engineer licensed pursuant to the Professional
Engineers Act.
2. Between approximately January 2013 and June 2015, Ikpong
exchanged communications with Professional Engineers Ontario,
the Ministry of Transportation, the Minister of Transportation
and/or other professional engineers regarding his concern that
the analyses relating to the design of shear-connected box girder
bridges in Ontario were faulty.
3. Between approximately 2011 and 2013, while working as an
engineer for WSP Canada Inc. (WSP), Ikpong was involved in the
design of a number of bridge projects for WSP, including the Bug
River Bridge, for which Ikpong jointly authored a Structural
Design Report (the report) dated May 1, 2012.
4. In or about January 2013, Ikpong raised concerns with the joint
author of the report regarding the analysis set out therein.
5. In or about February 2014, Ikpong sent an email to the Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario (MTO) questioning the analysis
performed by the bridge design consultants retained by the MTO
regarding their assumptions about the transfer of wheel load effects
between girders.
6. In its response, the MTO described the mechanisms in place to
ensure bridge safety in Canada but invited Ikpong to be more specific about his concerns and to identify any specific
structures where his concerns applied.
7. In his subsequent replies, Ikpong reiterated his view that
bridge design consultants hired by MTO had made errors
in the design of shear-connected box girder bridges in
Ontario and had failed to follow the Canadian Standards
Association’s Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code,
CAN/CSA-S6-06 (the code) such that the bridges were
unsafe for travelling, including two specific bridges where
the bending moment ratio attributed to the bridges was
unacceptable, including the Bug River Bridge.
8. When the MTO advised Ikpong they would look into
the two bridges and requested that he share his analysis,
Ikpong refused to do so, asserting that the solution was
his intellectual property and that he would only provide
assistance in the capacity of a consultant.
9. Subsequently, without specifying why the bridge analysis
was incorrect, Ikpong advised the MTO that his concern
related to the consultants improperly using the simplified methods of analysis provided for by the code and
the criteria that must be met in order for those simplified
methods to work.
10. In or about March 2014, the MTO advised Ikpong that
a senior engineer had reviewed the calculations for one
of the bridges and obtained similar results to the
original calculations. Ikpong replied that the calculations
could not be correct if they were based on the simplified
method applicable to multi-spine bridges but refused to
explain why he believed the MTO’s calculations were
erroneous.
11. MTO provided a further response to Ikpong’s comments
about the use of the multi-spine simplified method,
explaining in detail how certain bridge types must be
analyzed for relevant structural responses under the
code.
12. After receiving this correspondence, Ikpong, for the first
time, provided the MTO with a document purporting
to set out his analysis. In response, MTO advised Ikpong
that the Ontario Public Transportation Improvements Act
(OPTIA) mandates the use of the code for the design of
bridges in Ontario and that until any proposed method
is approved and incorporated into the code, its use would
be a violation of the OPTIA. MTO advised Ikpong that
it was concluding its investigation into his concerns.
13. In or about July 2014, Ikpong wrote directly to the
Minister of Transportation about his concerns regarding
the methods of analysis being used by the MTO’s bridge
consultants and the “dire consequences” this created for
the safety of the travelling public. Ikpong requested that
he receive credit and payment for his proposed solution
to the problem.
14. In his response, the minister’s representative advised
Ikpong that they had discussed his concerns with bridge
engineers, noted that a number of consultants had
designed bridges independently following the provisions
of the code and obtained similar results, and that the
MTO had recently conducted a load test on a similarly
designed bridge and no defects or performance issues
were identified.
15. At approximately the same time he wrote to the minister,
Ikpong also filed complaints with PEO against the MTO
engineers and design consultants involved in the Bug
River Bridge and/or Beaver Creek Bridge projects (the
project respondents). In his complaints, Ikpong questioned the method of analysis they used in calculating the
live load for bridges made of pre-stressed concrete box
girders, classified by the code as “shear-connected beam
bridges,” including the Bug River Bridge and/or Beaver
Creek Bridge.
16. Ikpong alleged that the project respondents:
a. failed to discover that the “simplified methods of
analysis” set out in section 5.7.1.1 of the code does
not apply to “shear-connected beam bridges”; and
b. employed a method of analysis that results in bending moments roughly 25 per cent of moment
produced by one truck, such that any pre-stressed
concrete box girder bridges designed or approved by
the project respondents will carry only 50 per cent of
the live load effect, greatly compromising safety.
17. In or about October 2014, the MTO filed its response to
Ikpong’s complaint, which included opinions from four
practitioners and academics regarding Ikpong’s allegations
and the proper method of analysis for shear-connected
beam bridges (MTO experts). The MTO’s response and
accompanying opinions clarified their precise points of
disagreement with Ikpong’s analysis and conclusions.
18. In or about December 2014, some of the MTO engineers Ikpong had complained about filed their own
complaint with PEO against Ikpong, alleging, inter alia, that he demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill
and judgment in respect of the interpretation
and application of the code, bridge design and
construction methods in general and in respect
of shear-connected beam bridges in particular
(the MTO complaint).
19. In or about January 2015, Ikpong contacted at
least two of the MTO experts who had provided opinions that disagreed with his analysis
and conclusions. Ikpong was critical of the
MTO experts and maintained that his analysis
and conclusions were correct.
20. In or about February 2015, the Complaints
Committee considered Ikpong’s complaint
together with all of the information obtained by
PEO in its investigation of that matter,
including the responses and opinions submitted by the MTO engineers. The Complaints
Committee concluded that there was no evidence of unprofessional conduct or a breach of
the Code of Ethics on the part of the project
respondents and did not refer the matter to
the Discipline Committee.
21. In or about June 2015, Ikpong provided a very
lengthy response to the MTO complaint, complete with drawings and calculations intended
to prove that his analysis and approach was
correct and that espoused by the project respondents and the MTO experts was wrong.
22. Between approximately January 2013 and
June 2015, as set out in the communications
above with Professional Engineers Ontario, the
Ministry of Transportation, the Minister of
Transportation and/or other professional engineers, Ikpong:
a. used intemperate and/or
unprofessional language;
b. provided information and/or made statements that he knew or ought to have
known were not true and/or inaccurate;
c. repeatedly made disparaging, unfounded,
inaccurate, untrue, inappropriate and/or
unprofessional comments regarding other
professional engineers and/or
engineering firms, including comments
questioning their competency and/or
integrity;
d. repeatedly and/or persistently communicated that his opinion
regarding the appropriate method of analyzing shearconnected beam bridges was correct, despite having been presented with significant evidence to the contrary;
e. initially refused to share details of the analysis and/or calculations he used:
i. to conclude that shear-connected beam bridges and/or
pre-stressed concrete box girder bridges, such as the Bug
River Bridge, were inappropriately designed and/or constructed; and/or
ii. to identify his proposed solution to these errors, unless
and until he received recognition and/or compensation,
despite his stated belief that these bridges represented a
risk to public safety;
f. persisted in his opinion that his method of analyzing shearconnected beam bridges and/or pre-stressed concrete box
girder bridges was correct, despite having been presented with
significant evidence to the contrary;
g. favoured certain assumptions in his design and analysis that
supported his opinion while disregarding other assumptions,
which were based on sound scientific and engineering principles, that did not support his opinion;
h. misinterpreted the Canadian Standards Association’s Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code, including when he treated
shear-connected beam bridge design as a multi-spine bridge
design;
i. demonstrated a lack of understanding of the application of
the Canadian Standards Association’s Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code to shear-connected beam bridges,
including but not limited to the Bug River Bridge;
j. demonstrated a lack of understanding and/or refused to
accept that the shear key transfers the load between girders;
k. demonstrated, based on his improper and/or inaccurate modelling, that he did not understand the proper methods and/
or considerations that apply to the design of shear-connected
beam bridges and/or other structures;
l. misinterpreted the proper methods for designing shearconnected beam bridges;
m. demonstrated a lack of understanding that the girders of
shear- connected beam bridges can resist torsional moments
and, in doing so, ignored the dynamic nature of this type of
bridge.
23. Based on these facts, it is alleged that Anthony Ikpong, P.Eng., is
guilty of professional misconduct and/or is incompetent by:
a. engaging in conduct or an act relevant to the practice of
professional engineering that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by the engineering
profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional; amounting to professional misconduct as
defined in s. 72(2)(j) of Ontario Regulation 941; and/or
b. engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that he knew or ought
reasonably to have known was unwelcome
and that might reasonably be regarded as
interfering in a professional engineering
relationship; amounting to professional
misconduct as defined in s. 72(2)(n) of
Ontario Regulation 941; and/or
c. displaying in his professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment
or disregard for the welfare of the public of
a nature or to an extent that demonstrates
he is unfit to carry out the responsibilities
of a professional engineer; amounting to
incompetence as defined by s. 28(3)(a) of
the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990
c. P 28, as amended; or
d. in the alternative to c. above, committing
acts or omissions in the carrying out of
his work as a practitioner that constituted
a failure to maintain the standards that a
reasonable and prudent practitioner would
maintain in the circumstances; amounting
to professional misconduct as defined in
s. 72(2)(a) of the Ontario Regulation 941.
PLEA OF THE MEMBER
Dr. Ikpong denied all of the allegations.
OVERVIEW AND FACTS
The uncontested facts in this matter are that Dr.
Ikpong was at all relevant times a professional engineer licensed under the Professional Engineers Act,
having held a licence since September 2010; that he
was employed as a senior bridge engineer at Genivar between 2011 and 2013 involved in the design
of bridge projects including the Bug River Bridge;
that his employment at Genivar was terminated in
January 2013 shortly after he raised concerns about
the analysis used in the design of certain bridges
as reflected in the report he jointly authored dated
May 1, 2012; and that the events giving rise to
this hearing began around the time of Dr. Ikpong’s
departure from Genivar and include the following
actions he took regarding his concerns about the
design of shear-connected box girder bridges commissioned by the MTO:
• Between February and March of 2014, Dr. Ikpong communicated
by email with various MTO staff regarding the “Design of Prestressed/Precast Concrete Box Girder Bridges in the Province
of Ontario,” expressing his concerns about the analysis of these
structures.
• On July 14, 2014, Dr. Ikpong sent a letter to the Minister of
Transportation alleging “incompetent highway bridge designs in
the Province of Ontario.”
• On July 20, 2014, after having been advised by MTO that his
concerns were considered unfounded, Dr. Ikpong filed a complaint with PEO against Nicolas C. Theodor, P.Eng., the head,
bridge design, in the bridge office of MTO alleging negligence
and a failure to safeguard life, health or property over “erroneously
designed…prestressed concrete box girder bridges.”
• Dr. Ikpong subsequently filed similar complaints against three
other MTO engineers.
In response to Dr. Ikpong’s actions, on December 10, 2014, Chris
Raymond, PhD, P.Eng., secretary, Qualification Committee, head,
construction contracts section of MTO, filed the MTO complaint with
PEO against Dr. Ikpong on behalf of the project respondents against
whom Dr. Ikpong had complained. Dr. Ikpong’s complaints were not
referred to the Discipline Committee for a hearing.
Dr. Ikpong, who holds a BSc in civil engineering and a MSc in
structural engineering from the University of Jos in Nigeria, obtained
his PhD in civil engineering from Concordia University in 2016 with
his thesis “Managing Highway Bridges Against Climate-Triggered
Extreme Events in Cold Regions.”
The issues before the panel are whether Dr. Ikpong’s communications, conduct and/or actions between January 2013 and June 2015
amounted to professional misconduct under sections 72(2)(j) (Allegation 1) and/or (n) (Allegation 2) of Ontario Regulation 941 as alleged
by PEO; and whether the facts establish that Dr. Ikpong was or is
incompetent (Allegation 3) and/or negligent (Allegation 4).
EVIDENCE, DECISION AND REASONS REGARDING EACH
ALLEGATION
PEO bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the
standard of proof, which in this matter is a balance of probabilities.
Allegation 1
Sections 72(2)(j) of Ontario Regulation 941 under the act states:
(2) For the purposes of the act and this regulation,
“professional misconduct” means,
(j) conduct or an act relevant to the practice of professional engineering that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably
be regarded by the engineering profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional[.]

The evidence before the panel relating to this
allegation consisted of email exchanges between Dr.
Ikpong and various MTO engineers, Dr. Ikpong’s
letter to the Minister of Transportation (the minister) and the complaint Dr. Ikpong filed with PEO
against the project respondents. Of particular concern to the panel were the passages authored by Dr.
Ikpong set out below.
Dr. Ikpong’s email to Tony Merlo, P.Eng., manager of the bridge office, MTO, dated February 13,
2014, which followed emails Dr. Ikpong had sent
on February 10 and 11, 2014, expressing concerns
about the “structural analysis of concrete box girder
superstructures,” the “assumption of transfer of
wheel load effects between girders” and the “bending ratio” and “design moments” for these bridges
and stated, in part:
The bridges affected include ALL the
box girder bridges designed/built over the
past 3 to 4 years in the Province of Ontario.
A subset of those bridges would be all the
concrete box girder bridges designed under
the contracts awarded by the Northwestern
Region of MTO to 3 consulting engineering firms in 2010/2011 or thereabout. There
could be up to a total of 20 such concrete
box girder bridges in Northwestern Ontario
alone. There will be lots more from the other
regions of the MTO.
I am the one who identified this problem and I reserve the right to continue to be
involved to ensure that the engineering work is
corrected to my satisfaction. I will not accept
being shunted aside. I also have an obligation
as a professional engineer to follow through to
ensure that the work is rectified right. Unless
you insist otherwise, we can take care of this
without the involvement of a third party, I
want to solve this problem, and take credit
for identifying it and solving it. Without my
intervention, how was the ministry going to be
“looking into” anything?
I have developed a method and the rationale for designing these concrete box girder
bridges and I am the one to re-design these
bridges, wherever they may be in Ontario. You
(MTO) and the consultants had your chance
and it doesn’t look like you did it right. I’m not
ready to trust you guys to do it again. By the
way, you have not even managed to say thank
you for identifying the problem.
Please be aware that I have possession of
written communication dated 10 January 2013
(one year ago) in which I advised the three
consultants against their approach to the design
of these box girders for MTO Northwestern
Region. Given their performance, these consultants have forfeited the “right” to work on these
projects again. I will do the work, ensure that it
is done right, and these consultants will pay for
the re-design and the re-construction of these
bridges no matter whether there are 50, 70 or
100 of such bridges in Ontario.
Please let me know. [sic]
At that point, Mr. Merlo asked Mr. Theodor to
look into the issues raised by Dr. Ikpong. In an
email dated February 28, 2014, Dr. Ikpong stated:
Regarding the right way to analyze these
box girders, I can do that for you in the capacity of a consultant. It is intellectual property
and a part of my practice of structural engineering. In other words, I’d be happy to solve the
problem for you if you invite me.
Please let me know.
On March 3, 2014, Mr. Theodor wrote to Dr.
Ikpong and said that one of his senior engineers
reviewed the calculations, in accordance with
the code, for one of the structures identified by
Dr. Ikpong and obtained results similar to those
obtained by the consultant, and that he personally
went through the calculations using the 1983 version of the code and obtained comparable results.
Mr. Theodor then asked Dr. Ikpong to share his
calculations with MTO so that they could be compared to see where MTO might have possibly gone
wrong in the event they were possibly “falling into
the same trap” in which case “the code should be
made clearer.” Dr. Ikpong’s response of that same
date said, in part:
As I have noted in two separate emails
to you and Mr. Merlo, I have developed a
method and a rationale for the proper analysis
of these concrete box girder superstructures,
but it is intellectual property. It is not common knowledge.

Mr. Theodor then provided a lengthy reply to
Dr. Ikpong on March 4, 2014, reminding him
that he has “an ethical responsibility” to report
his calculations if they “indicate that the current
method of analysis gives results that are not conservative and have the potential to impact the safety
of these structures.” Mr. Theodor also stated that
MTO’s investigation of the issue was concluded. In
response, Dr. Ikpong stated on March 6, 2014:
Attached you will find a technical paper
that I have authored, which details the fundamentals of structural engineering for
determining peak girder moments and shears
in multi-girder bridges, including precast/
prestressed concrete box girders. There is only
one truth regarding the structural analysis of
these types of bridge superstructures, and this is
the truth—the attached paper. My approach is
thoroughly proven within the paper.
…
Please read through the technical paper and
the attached Sketch and scrutinize them. I will
not charge you any fee for reading them. Further, I encourage you to adopt my method for
the design of concrete box girders for Ontario
bridges. However, if you decide to adopt my
method, the following condition shall apply:
for a fee, I will use my method, in the capacity
of a subconsultant or other capacity, to perform
the analysis, provide the rationale for the analysis, and provide the design bending moments
and design shears for all the concrete box girders designed for Ontario bridges under
contracts awarded to consultants during the past
5 years.
In his response to Dr. Ikpong, Mr. Theodor
advised that the OPTIA mandates the use of the
code for the design of bridges in Ontario and that
until any proposed method is implemented by the
code, its use would be considered a violation of the
legislation. Mr. Theodor also stated that he was
immediately deleting, without reading, the papers
Dr. Ikpong had sent him, that he didn’t wish to
receive any additional such correspondence and that
he considered the issue closed.
Dr. Ikpong then sent a letter to the minister on
July 14, 2014, stating, in part:
I write to bring to your attention a horrific
situation involving incompetent highway bridge
designs in the Province of Ontario. By providing engineering insight, I have on my own tried to correct/reverse
this problem, but the problem persists. The engineering service
providers contracted by the ministry have failed to discover the
error in their work even when it has been repeatedly questioned.
Similarly, your bridge engineers and structural engineers at the
bridge office as well as the structural sections in the various
regions have failed to positively deploy detailed information
provided to them on why the designs are wrong.
***
As stated above, I did provide Mr. Merlo and Mr. Theodor
with the structural engineering solution for this problem, complete
with the rationale for the solution approach, but I also gave them
the following condition. They can use my method and rationale
for the further analysis and design of concrete box girder bridges
for which design contracts had been awarded by 5th March 2014.
To that end, I have already completed two-thirds of the work
as follows.
1. I have identified the problem and the danger to the public
where no one else could.
2. I have conceived the solution for the problem where no one
else could.
3. What remains now is the third and final phase, namely, for
me to implement my solution on the 50 or more concrete
box girder bridges that have already been designed, built or
contracted out province wide.
4. What also remains is for me to get paid for all of the work
that I have done in identifying the problem, conceiving a solu
tion, and implementing the solution. The ministry will pay me
and then back-charge the consultants.
***
2. March 3rd 2014 email to me from Nicolas Theodor…in which Mr.
Theodor confirms that the Ontario Government engineers are just as
incompetent as the consultants with respect to the proper analysis of
concrete box girder bridges.
This is a serious matter with dire consequences for the safety
of the travelling public, and one which is perfectly within your
purview to resolve. I am the one who identified this problem, and
I want to solve this problem and take credit for identifying it and
solving it. I also want to be paid for the ingenuity in coming up
with the solution and for implementing the solution on all the
affected bridges. [sic]
In the response sent on behalf of the minister on August 11, 2014,
to Dr. Ikpong, Dino Bagnario, P.Eng., director of the highway standards branch stated:
Finally, I would like to address your comment that the email
from Mr. Nick Theodor, P.Eng., of March 3, 2014, “confirms that Ontario Government engineers are just
as incompetent as the consultants with respect
to the proper analysis of concrete box girder
bridges.” The ministry vehemently disagrees
with your comments with respect to this e-mail
and no such statements are made or implied in
the e-mail by Mr. Theodor. In fact you may
want to consider withdrawing this statement.
A professional engineer in Ontario that makes
inaccurate accusations against a fellow engineer,
suggesting that they are incompetent or have
allowed unsafe situations to persist, is violating the Professional Engineers Code of Ethics
(section 77 of the O.Reg. 941) and could
potentially be subject to discipline from Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO). In future I
suggest you be mindful of this when communicating your concerns.
The ministry considers this matter now closed.
If you have any further questions or concerns
with the methods of analysis in the CHBDC
for this type of bridge, I urge you to contact the
chair of the CHBDC analysis section. Thank
you for your concerns. [sic]
Based on Dr. Ikpong’s own words and actions
set out in the passages above, the panel concludes
that Dr. Ikpong engaged in conduct or an act relevant to the practice of professional engineering
that, having regard to all the circumstances, would
reasonably be regarded by the engineering
profession as unprofessional. Dr. Ikpong’s conduct
is relevant to the practice of professional
engineering because
it concerned existing bridges on which his former
employer consulted and on which he was involved
and bridge design as set out in the code. Dr. Ikpong
has a duty as a professional engineer to conduct
himself professionally in regard to the practice of
professional engineering.
The panel considers Dr. Ikpong’s labelling of
other engineers as incompetent to be intemperate
language that demonstrated poor judgment. The
panel is convinced that the average engineer would
have concerns about Dr. Ikpong’s intemperate language and poor judgment and would consider it
unprofessional to accuse another engineer of being
incompetent in circumstances when one engineer
believes that he or she has discovered a preferable
engineering solution or design. Even if Dr. Ikpong
had in fact discovered a superior engineering solution or design—and the panel is not suggesting that
he has—choosing to communicate his discovery in
the way that he did would be unprofessional.
The panel notes Dr. Ikpong’s testimony that he
acted out of concern for public safety and his position that he is a whistleblower who is now being
punished for pointing out safety concerns. While
Dr. Ikpong’s intent in his letter to the minister
appears to have been, in part, to protect public
safety, Dr. Ikpong could have and should have
voiced his concern in a professional manner.
For the reasons above, the panel finds Dr. Ikpong
guilty of professional misconduct under section
72(2)(j) of Ontario Regulation 941 of the act.
Allegation 2
Section 72(2)(n) of Ontario Regulation 941 of the
act states:
(2) For the purposes of the act and this regulation,
“professional misconduct” means,
(n) harassment.
“Harassment” is defined in section 72(1) of
O.Reg. 941, which reads:
(1) In this section,
“harassment” means engaging in a course of
vexatious comment or conduct that is known
or ought reasonably to be known as unwelcome and that might reasonably be regarded as
interfering in a professional engineering relationship[.]
Based on Dr. Ikpong’s correspondence and conduct set out under the Allegation 1 discussion above,
the panel is satisfied that he engaged in a course
of vexatious comment or conduct that he knew or
ought reasonably to have known was unwelcome
and that might reasonably be regarded as interfering
in a professional engineering relationship.
Dr. Ikpong’s letter to the minister and his correspondence with MTO engineers leading up to it
were courses of vexatious comment or conduct that
he ought reasonably to have known were unwelcome. By the time he sent his letter to the minister,
Dr. Ikpong had already been told by MTO that
his concerns were investigated by multiple other
engineers and determined to be unfounded. In these
circumstances, Dr. Ikpong’s decision to write to the
minister and accuse the project respondents, who
had considered and dismissed his specific concerns, of incompetence because they disagreed with his
views, was harassment.
The panel also accepts that Dr. Ikpong’s
repeated offers to provide his engineering services
to MTO to rectify the bridge problems he alleged
existed, as set out in the passages in Allegation 1
above, might reasonably be regarded as interfering in a professional engineering relationship.
Dr. Ikpong explicitly and repeatedly offered his
services to MTO in the place of other professional
engineers who had a contractual relationship with
MTO, even going so far as to suggest that MTO
“back-charge” these engineers once it paid him for
implementing his “solution.”
Dr. Ikpong’s strongly worded letter to MTO and
his accusations of incompetence were serious actions
taken after he had been told by MTO and other
engineers he contacted that his concerns had been
investigated, considered unfounded and dismissed,
and that the matter was closed. The language and
approach Dr. Ikpong used in the circumstances was
harassment.
For the reasons above, the panel finds Dr.
Ikpong guilty of professional misconduct under section 72(2)(n) of Ontario Regulation 941 of the act.
Allegation 3
Section 28(3)(a) of the act states:
(1) The Discipline Committee may find a
member of the association or a holder of a
temporary licence, a provisional licence or
a limited licence to be incompetent if in its
opinion,
(a) the member or holder has displayed in
his or her professional responsibilities a
lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or
disregard for the welfare of the public of
a nature or to an extent that demonstrates
the member or holder is unfit to carry out
the responsibilities of a professional engineer[.]
The application of section 28(3)(a) requires that a
member display “in his professional responsibilities” a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or
disregard for public welfare sufficient to demonstrate
that he is unfit to be an engineer. The panel is not
satisfied that the conduct of Dr. Ikpong as set out in
the Amended Statement of Allegations constituted
a display “in his professional responsibilities.” The
extensive testimony of the witnesses and Dr. Ikpong
established that Dr. Ikpong expressed certain views
on engineering analysis and design of pre-stressed
concrete box girder bridges and that he did so in
the capacity of an engineer volunteering his views,
in part, out of concern for public safety. This context is crucial to the panel’s finding. The panel does
not accept that Dr. Ikpong’s volunteered views on
bridge design and his insistence that his volunteered
views were correct qualified as a display in his “professional responsibilities” of a lack of knowledge,
skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of
the public as required for the application of section
28(3)(a) of the act. The panel considers Dr. Ikpong
to be expressing a concern, albeit one that none of
the witnesses agreed with, about bridge design. Irrespective of whether Dr. Ikpong’s views were in fact
wrong, the panel cannot make a finding of incompetence when the conduct underlying the allegation
is not a display in his professional responsibilities of
a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard
for the welfare of the public and the section 28(3)(a)
test is not met.
The evidence adduced by PEO does not establish on a balance of probabilities that Dr. Ikpong is
incompetent within the meaning of section 28(3)(a)
of the act and, as a result, the panel finds that Allegation 3 has not been proven.
Allegation 4
Section 72(2)(a) of O.Reg. 941 states:
(2) For the purposes of the act and this regulation,
“professional misconduct” means,
(a) negligence[.]

“Negligence” is defined in section 72(1), which
reads, in part:
“negligence” means an act or an omission in
the carrying out of the work of a practitioner
that constitutes a failure to maintain the standards that a reasonable and prudent practitioner
would maintain in the circumstances.
The panel is not satisfied that PEO has proven
Allegation 4. Similar to its reasoning regarding Allegation 3, the panel does not consider Dr. Ipkong’s
conduct in volunteering his views on bridge design
to qualify as “an act or an omission in the carrying
out of the work of a practitioner.” Dr. Ikpong’s acts
or omissions in the circumstances of this matter
were not “in the carrying out of” his “work.” As the
first part of the definition of negligence is not satisfied, the panel finds section 72(2)(a) of O.Reg. 941
cannot apply.
CONCLUSION
Having found Dr. Ikpong guilty of professional misconduct under sections 72(2)(j) and (n) of Ontario
Regulation 941 of the act, the panel will invite submissions from the parties on penalty.
FINAL NOTE
The panel notes that professional engineers have a
duty to raise, and should not be faulted for raising,
safety concerns. The evidence in this matter established that Dr. Ikpong conscientiously objected to a
specific bridge design and that he advocated for
what he considered a safer design and for a
clarification in the code for prestressed/precast
concrete box girder bridges. The panel is neither
charged with nor quali- fied to determine such
design questions. However,
the panel notes it was presented with evidence of
recurring failures of shear keys and of the judgment
requirement for bringing shear-connected box girders into the sphere of the code’s simplified design,
both of which raise issues. Accordingly, the panel
recommends that these issues and the additional
information and calculations that Dr. Ikpong provided in response to PEO’s reply submissions
(which the panel did not accept or review) be
reviewed by relevant authorities. In this regard, the
panel echoes the recommendation of the Complaints
Committee Decision of April 1, 2015, that concerns
regarding the accuracy or applicability of the code
should be forwarded to, and seriously considered by,
the CSA Technical Committee responsible for the
code which should publish its reasoning and
conclusions.
Henry Tang signed this Decision and Reasons for
the decision as chair of this discipline panel and on
behalf of the members of the discipline panel: Stella
Ball, LLB, Paul Ballantyne, P.Eng., Tim Kirkby,
P.Eng., and Patrick Quinn, P.Eng