peoviolatingcodeofethics

Source: PEO Act, R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 941, Section 72, Downloaded Mar 06, 2010, http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900941_e.htm

(f) failure of a practitioner to present clearly to the practitioner’s employer the consequences to be expected from a deviation proposed in work, if the professional engineering judgment of the practitioner is overruled by non-technical authority in cases where the practitioner is responsible for the technical adequacy of professional engineering work,
(g) breach of the Act or regulations, other than an action that is solely a breach of the code of ethics,

Can it not be argued that the employer
of the PEO is "the public" and "The
Province Of Ontario" which looks to
the PEO for technical expertise in
matters pertaining to the enforcement
of the Ontario Building Code and/or Act
and The Engineering Act?

If ANYONE who was NOT an engineer
had "pushed back" on the PEO and said:
"Not your job and/or not your
jurisdiction" in matters pertaining to
the 2007 letter the PEO issued warning
of a problem in the truss industry, did
the PEO not have a duty to themselves
push back and say... "This absolutely IS
our jurisdiction" since we are the
engineers who understand the scientific
principles at play and non-engineers
are not qualified to speak in matters
pertaining to these same principles and
their application!!!

Furthermore, by allowing "NON-engineers" to say "not your jurisdiction to the PEO" and the PEO KNOWING their WAS a SERIOUS problem, as evidenced by the fact that the 2007 warning letter was issued to address a province-wide problem, the question must be asked, did the PEO allow structures to go up with major structural defects by having failed to insist the issues be properly investigated and addressed by the PEO!
Who TRULY had jurisdiction in these matters - The PEO or
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing???