Note: Capitalized terms on this webpage have the same meaning as defined in the AIBC Bylaws.
The Professional Governance Act and the AIBC Bylaws authorize the Investigation Committee and Discipline Committee to propose an alternative complaint resolution (ACR) to a Respondent in a professional conduct Complaint. This may occur when concerns about the Respondent’s conduct, competency, or fitness to practice would be better resolved through an ACR process rather than a Discipline Hearing.
The purpose of an ACR is to improve the Respondent’s practice or otherwise better serve the public interest. The ACR process is established in AIBC Bylaws 7.6 to 7.15 and overseen by the Investigation Committee or Discipline Committee, who monitor and assess the Respondent’s compliance and determine whether the Respondent has satisfied the ACR. If the Respondent successfully completes the ACR, the matter is concluded and is not considered to be a Discipline Violation.
The AIBC Publishes anonymous summaries of successfully completed ACRs to educate Registrants and the public about the importance of upholding ethical and professional conduct expectations.
Current Alternative Complaint Resolution(s):
There are no Alternative Complaint Resolutions at this time.
Previous Remedial Recommendations under the Architects Act:
2023-02-27
The AIBC Investigations Committee (the “Committee”) made a remedial recommendation for an Architect AIBC (the “Respondent”) who failed to notify a previously engaged architect, in writing, upon being approached to proceed with services for which the Respondent knows that another architect was engaged by the same client and delegated the ethical responsibility for this notification to the client, contrary to Bylaw 34.8 in the AIBC Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (Code of Ethics).
In this matter, the Respondent was asked to provide a fee proposal for architectural services, including supervising the project as the new architect of record and Coordinating Registered Professional. The client informed the Respondent that they were terminating architectural services with the first architect, and that final payment was in process. Following this solicitation, the Respondent did not contact the first architect to advise that he was approached to provide services for the project and to confirm whether the first architect had been terminated. The Respondent proceeded to provide the client with a fee proposal for the project and requested a letter from the client and first architect confirming the first architect’s release from the project before the Respondent could commence work.
The investigation revealed that the Respondent misunderstood the obligations that had to be fulfilled when approached by a client to provide architectural services on a project that already had an architect. The Respondent admitted during the investigation that steps were not taken, as required by Bylaw 34.8 in the Code of Ethics, to notify the first architect about the project takeover. The Committee determined that the public interest would be better served through a remedial recommendation intended to review the Respondent’s current understanding of project takeover requirements.
The remedial recommendation required the Respondent to analyze various project takeover scenarios and submit written answers to the AIBC Remedial Review Panel (the “Panel”), explaining the steps required to ensure compliance with AIBC Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct Bylaw 34.8.
The Respondent accepted the remedial recommendation and completed the requirements. The Panel determined that the Respondent satisfied the remedial recommendation and the matter was concluded.
2021-10-29
The AIBC’s Investigations Committee (the “Committee”) made a remedial recommendation for an Architect AIBC (the “Respondent”) who had breached the Architects Act, AIBC Bylaws and council rulings by:
- failing to accurately represent to the public, a prospective or existing client the architect’s qualifications and the scope of the architect’s responsibility in connection with work for which the architect is claiming credit, pursuant to AIBC Bylaw 32.2;
- providing architectural services to a client prior to having all terms and conditions or engagement confirmed in a written architectural services contract with the client executed by both parties, with the required clauses, pursuant to AIBC Bylaw 28.0; and
- failing to seal work in accordance with the Architects Act and Bylaws and council rulings, pursuant to Architects Act 77(1) and AIBC Bylaw 34.2(b).
In this matter, the Respondent transitioned from a partnership to a sole practitioner pursuant to an agreement in which each partner maintained their existing clients and projects. The Respondent continued to provide architectural services to their clients and projects without executing new client-architect agreements and continued using and sealing drawings prepared under the partnership’s title block. Approximately a year later, the former partner notified the Respondent of the situation, following which the Respondent sought advice from the AIBC and self-reported the infractions. In the course of the investigation, the Committee noted that the partnership failed to carry out the necessary due diligence and responsibilities required when clients and projects are assigned in a transition.
The Committee noted that the Respondent did not have a professional conduct record; their actions did not indicate a lack of professional competence; and prior to being notified by the former partner, had sought advice from the AHJ and relied upon it, not realizing it was incorrect. Additionally, the Respondent sought advice from AIBC’s practice advisors to correct the deficiencies; self-reported to the Institute; and corrected the deficiencies promptly and diligently after they were brought to their attention. In light of the foregoing, the Committee determined that the public interest would be better served through a remedial recommendation intended to review the Respondent’s current understanding of the processes required when an architect transitions from one firm to another with clients and projects.
The remedial recommendation required the Respondent to attend a peer practice review with the AIBC Remedial Review Panel (the “Panel”) and explain the due diligence which must occur when there is an assignment of clients and projects; and, discuss why these steps are necessary for the interests of the client, the architect, the new firm the old firm, and the impact it has on professional liability insurance.
The Respondent accepted the remedial recommendation and completed the requirements. The Panel determined that the Respondent had satisfied the remedial recommendation and the matter was concluded.
2021-10-29
The AIBC’s Investigations Committee (the “Committee”) made a remedial recommendation for an Architect AIBC (the “Respondent”) who had breached AIBC Bylaw 28.0(b) by providing architectural services to a client prior to advising the client in writing of the required clauses pertaining to professional liability insurance and that the contract was in compliance with AIBC Bylaws, including the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
In this matter the Respondent executed a letter of agreement (the “Agreement”) with the client for the provision of architectural services for a single-family home. The Agreement set out the services to be provided, the fees and other standard contract provisions, but it did not state whether professional liability insurance was in place, or that the insurance policy was available for review by the client upon request. Additionally, the Agreement omitted the required statement that the contract was in compliance with AIBC Bylaws, including the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. In the course of the investigation, the Committee also noted that the Respondent did not appear to be aware of best commercial practices, including the use of retainers.
The Committee determined that the public interest would be served through a remedial recommendation intended to increase the Respondent’s current understanding of client-architect agreements, the requirements of the AIBC Bylaws, and best commercial practices.
The remedial recommendation required the Respondent to review AIBC Bylaws 28.0, 28.1 and 34.10 from the AIBC’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct; to review AIBC Council approved contracts; and to attend a peer practice review with the AIBC Remedial Review Panel (the “Panel”) to discuss how his client-architect agreements could align with the AIBC Bylaws and best commercial practices.
The Respondent accepted the remedial recommendation and completed the requirements. The Respondent demonstrated that he understood his obligations and had amended his practice to make it compliant with AIBC Bylaws. The Panel determined the Respondent satisfied the remedial recommendation and the matter was concluded.
2021-05-27
The AIBC’s Investigations Committee (the “Committee”) made a remedial recommendation for an Architect AIBC (the “Respondent”) who had breached AIBC Bylaw 30.1 by failing to use the standard of care expected in conducting field reviews and preparing field reports.
In this matter the Respondent had provided architectural services for a multi-residential building. During a final occupancy review, building officials found Building Code deficiencies and filed a professional conduct compliant. In the course of the investigation, the Committee noted there was a lack of attention and detail applied by the Respondent during field reviews and a failure to document outstanding deficiency items which were subsequently identified by the authority having jurisdiction.
The Committee determined that the public interest would be served through a remedial recommendation intended to review the Respondent’s current understanding of the standards of practice pertaining to field reviews and reports.
The remedial recommendation required the Respondent to attend a peer practice consultation with two architects designated by the AIBC to review and discuss the practice items at the core of the complaint. The designated architects were asked to assess and report on the Respondent’s satisfactory attendance and understanding of the above matters.
The Respondent accepted the remedial recommendation and completed the requirements. The Remedial Review Panel determined, based on the report of the designated architects, that the Respondent had satisfied the remedial recommendation, and the matter was concluded.
2020-10-21
The AIBC’s Investigations Committee (the “Committee”) made a remedial recommendation for an Architect AIBC (the “Respondent”) who had breached AIBC Bylaw 34.5 by acting unprofessionally and/or in a manner reflecting unfavourably on the profession of architecture.
While registered as an architect in another jurisdiction, the Respondent was the subject of a disciplinary proceeding which resulted in a finding of unprofessional conduct. A penalty order was issued which included fine and cost payments as well as a requirement to complete a course related to practice management.
The Respondent did not complete the course requirement of the penalty order.
The Committee determined that permitting an architect in BC to disregard a penalty order issued by a regulatory body in another jurisdiction would not be in the public interest and would reflect poorly on the architectural profession. The Committee also concluded that failure to comply with a penalty order constitutes unprofessional conduct.
The remedial recommendation required the Respondent to complete and pass a course related to practice management, and to submit satisfactory proof of completion within one year from the date of the recommendation.
The Respondent accepted the remedial recommendation and completed the requirements. The Remedial Review Panel determined that the Respondent had satisfied the remedial recommendation, and the matter was concluded.
2018-03-21
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.