The AIBC Bylaws authorize the AIBC Investigations Committee to make a remedial recommendation to a respondent in a professional conduct complaint. This may occur when, following an investigation, the Investigations Committee has concerns about the respondent’s conduct, competency, or fitness to practise that would be better resolved through a remedial process than a referral to the disciplinary process.
The purpose of a remedial recommendation is to improve the respondent’s practice or otherwise protect the public. The process for a remedial recommendation is established in AIBC Bylaws 37.20 – 37.28. For it to be binding, a remedial recommendation must be agreed to by the respondent.
Once agreed to, the remedial process is overseen by the AIBC’s Remedial Review Panel. The Remedial Review Panel is tasked with receiving remedial recommendations from the Investigations Committee, monitoring and assessing the respondent’s compliance with the recommendation, and determining whether the respondent has satisfied the remedial recommendation. If the respondent successfully completes the remedial recommendation, the matter is concluded.
The AIBC publishes anonymous summaries of successfully completed remedial recommendations to educate registrants and the public about professional conduct and ethics matters.
Current Remedial Recommendation(s):
A remedial recommendation report was made by the AIBC’s Investigations Committee for an Intern Architect AIBC (the “Respondent”) who had breached the Architects Act, AIBC Bylaws and council rulings by:
- practising architecture without having obtained registration as an architect and receiving a certificate of practice (Architects Act section 27(2)(b) and 63 and AIBC Bylaw 33.3);
- by failing to confirm the terms and conditions of engagement through a client-architect agreement before commencing work (AIBC Bylaw 34.10 and council ruling (d));
- by failing to provide written notification to the client as to whether or not professional liability insurance is held and on what terms (AIBC Bylaw 34.10 and council ruling (e)); and
- by failing to provide the required compliance statement about AIBC Bylaws (AIBC Bylaw 34.10 and council ruling (f)).
In this matter the Respondent, an Intern Architect AIBC, had provided architectural services for a commercial project that required the services of a registered architect. The Respondent explained that he had conducted a feasibility study of a property, including drawings, for a family friend. The friend wanted to determine if he could afford to purchase the property, and build on it. It was the Respondent’s belief that the work was schematic only and a registered architect was required to further develop the drawings and submit them to the authority having jurisdiction. The Respondent confirmed that he had no contract for the work and provided services under a verbal agreement.
The remedial recommendation required that the Respondent provide a written report which described how he would comply with professional standards in the future, and attend a meeting with the Remedial Review Panel. The purpose of the meeting was to ensure the Respondent could appropriately articulate his understanding of the conduct that resulted in the complaint and that he had obtained an understanding of the problems created by his conduct.
The Respondent agreed to the remedial recommendations, and completed them. The Remedial Review Panel determined that the Respondent had satisfied the remedial recommendations, and the matter was concluded.