Professional Conduct

Every Complaint is reviewed to ensure it meets the basic requirements and falls within the AIBC’s jurisdiction. The AIBC may ask the Complainant (the person making the Complaint) to provide further information, including supporting documents. A copy of the Complaint is then sent to the named Registrant (the Respondent), who is asked to respond in writing. When the response is received, a copy or a summary is usually provided to the Complainant for their review and further comment. Once the initial exchange of information is complete, the Complaint material and a summary report of the Complaint are provided to the Investigation Committee for action.

The AIBC strives to ensure that both the Complainant and Respondent are treated with respect and fairness throughout the process. The AIBC’s professional conduct complaint process is designed to facilitate a full and impartial review and to incorporate the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The AIBC’s Investigation Committee is comprised of Architects, Retired Architects and lay (public) members. AIBC staff, including legal and paralegal staff, support the Investigation Committee in its work.

The Investigation Committee’s role is to determine whether the Complaint should be investigated and, if so, appoint a Lead Investigator to conduct the investigation. If the Investigation Committee initiates an investigation of a Complaint, it assigns a Lead Investigator to conduct the investigation.  The Lead Investigator carries out the investigation of the matter, which includes gathering documentation and conducting interviews as required.  When the investigation has concluded, the Lead Investigator prepares a report which is provided to the Respondent for review and response.  The investigation report will then be forwarded to the Investigation Committee to determine whether the matter warrants discipline and consider the appropriate outcome.

If the Investigation Committee determines that discipline charges are warranted, the Investigation Committee has the option to propose a complaint resolution to the Respondent or issue a Citation ordering a Discipline Hearing.  If the Investigation Committee determines that there is insufficient evidence to support charges, the matter is closed – sometimes with observations or “practice” advice communicated to the Respondent. In either instance, the Complainant and the Respondent are notified of the outcome of the investigation.

It is important to note that the Investigation Committee does not make a finding of whether a Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct or incompetence. Rather, the Investigation Committee performs a screening function by reviewing relevant information from the investigation and either closing the Complaint, proposing a complaint resolution, or issuing a Citation ordering a Discipline Hearing.

While the AIBC makes every effort to resolve Complaints promptly, the investigation process can take several months to complete, depending on the complexity of the Complaint and the Investigation Committee’s current workload. The Complainant and Respondent are regularly updated on the status of the investigation.

There is no appeal of the Investigation Committee’s decision under the AIBC Bylaws, although their decisions may be subject to judicial review within the court system.

Where the Investigation Committee concludes that there are sufficient grounds for charges to be made against a Respondent, it will identify the appropriate charges and section(s) of the PGA, Architects Regulation, the AIBC Bylaws and/or the Code of Ethics that are alleged to have been breached.

At this stage, the Investigation Committee has the option of proposing the following three complaint resolution options, depending on the nature of the file:

3.1 Reprimand, Remedial Action By Consent (RRAC)
At the conclusion of an investigation and if deemed appropriate by the Investigation Committee, the Respondent may be offered a written undertaking (a promise) not to repeat the conduct, required to take an educational course, and/or consent to a reprimanded by the AIBC. The RRAC process is confidential, and the Respondent or the AIBC can choose to abandon the process at any time. If a Respondent does not consent to a RRAC or does not comply with the terms of the undertaking, a Citation ordering a Discipline Hearing will be issued, and the time spent during the RRAC process will not constitute a delay.

In accordance with AIBC Bylaw 7.3, all finalized RRAC undertakings are recorded on the register and Published. Public notice of Discipline Records is intended to fulfill the AIBC’s objective of transparency and serves as an educational message for Registrants with respect to the importance of upholding ethical and professional conduct expectations.

The RRAC process may require the Respondent to reimburse the AIBC for reasonable expenses incurred in accordance with AIBC Bylaws 7.42 and 7.43.

3.2 Consent Order
The Investigation Committee may offer the Respondent an opportunity to pursue an agreed-upon outcome through a consent order. If successful, the process will result in a written agreement setting out the agreed facts of the case, an admission(s) of unprofessional conduct by the Respondent, and an agreed-upon penalty. The consent order process is confidential and does not prejudice or bias the Respondent or the AIBC if either party should choose to abandon the consent order process and proceed to a Discipline Hearing.

Possible penalties in a consent order include: a reprimand; imposition of conditions on a certificate of practice; educational action (e.g., coursework); the requirement to attend an oral conduct review; fine; suspension; and/or cancellation of registration.

In accordance with AIBC Bylaw 7.18, all finalized consent order agreements are recorded on the register and Published. Public notice of Discipline Records is intended to fulfill the AIBC’s objective of transparency and serves as an educational message for Registrants with respect to the importance of upholding ethical and professional conduct expectations.

The Consent Order process may require the Respondent to reimburse the AIBC for reasonable expenses incurred in accordance with AIBC Bylaws 7.42 and 7.43.

3.3 Alternative Complaint Resolution (ACR)
The Investigation Committee may decide that the discipline of a matter is better resolved through an alternative complaint resolution (ACR) process. The ACR process intends to improve a Respondent’s practice or otherwise better serve the public interest. If an agreement is reached, the ACR is confirmed in writing and describes the facts of the case and the actions required from the Respondent.

ACR actions may include: educational action (e.g., coursework); an oral conduct review; a practice consultation/peer review; and/or professional counseling (e.g., financial, social, health). The Investigation Committee will monitor, assess and determine a Respondent’s compliance with the ACR. Upon successful compliance, an anonymous summary of the completed ACR will be Published pursuant to Bylaw 7.12. In the event the Respondent elects not to proceed with an ACR, or does not satisfy the ACR actions, a Citation ordering a Discipline Hearing will be issued.

The ACR process may require the Respondent to reimburse the AIBC for reasonable expenses incurred in accordance with AIBC Bylaws 7.42 and 7.43.

3.4 Citation
The Investigation Committee may also direct the Registrar to issue a Citation ordering a Discipline Hearing. The Citation will identify the appropriate section(s) of the PGA, Architects Regulation, the AIBC Bylaws, and/or Code of Ethics that may have been breached.

See “Discipline Hearing”, below.

3.5 Discipline Hearing
A Discipline Hearing is a formal hearing before a Discipline Hearing Panel to determine whether the charges stated in the Citation are warranted against the Respondent. A Discipline Hearing Panel is comprised of at least three members of the Discipline Committee, including at least one Lay (public) Committee Member from the Discipline Committee.

Discipline Hearings are open to the public and typically proceed in two stages, the liability stage and the penalty stage. During the liability phase, the AIBC and the Respondent are given an opportunity to make arguments about whether allegations against the Respondent are proven, present evidence and call and cross-examine witnesses. Both parties may also be represented by legal counsel at their own expense. Note that although the Complainant is not a party in a Discipline Hearing, the Complainant may be called as a witness to give evidence.

At the end of the hearing, the Discipline Hearing Panel decides whether the charges have been proven or should be dismissed and issues written reasons for its decision.

If the Discipline Hearing Panel finds that charges have been proven against the Respondent, the Discipline Hearing moves to the penalty stage, in which the Discipline Hearing Panel hears submissions from both parties regarding the appropriate penalty. Penalties vary depending on the circumstances of the case and can include, but are not limited to, a reprimand, a fine, conditions imposed on a certificate of practice, suspension from practice, or cancellation of registration.

Decisions of a Discipline Hearing Panel may be appealed to the B.C. Supreme Court within 30 days of the ruling.

A Discipline Hearing Panel does not have the authority to grant compensation to a Complainant, even where a finding of Professional Misconduct, Conduct Unbecoming a Registrant or incompetence has been made against a Respondent. The remedies available to the Discipline Hearing Panel are prescribed by the PGA and are different from the options available in lawsuits brought through the courts.

A Discipline Hearing Panel may order the Respondent or the AIBC to pay Costs in accordance with AIBC Bylaw 7.44 and Schedule S: Costs Administrative Guidelines. The amount of Costs associated with a Discipline Hearing, which includes legal costs, is significantly higher than the Costs payable under the options offered through the complaint resolution process.