CONSENSUAL RESOLUTION AGREEMENT

Transcription

1 IN THE MATTER OF THE ARCHITECTS ACT R.S.B.C C. 17 AS AMENDED and IN THE MATTER OF A CONSENSUAL RESOLUTION BETWEEN: MACLENNAN JAUNKALNS MILLER ARCHITECTS LTD. and THE ARCHITECTURAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSENSUAL RESOLUTION AGREEMENT The Architects Act authorizes the institute to attempt resolution of disciplinary matters by way of consensual resolution. AIBC Bylaws 36.0 through provide the specific processes and procedures by which the AIBC and a member or other registrant may reach agreement on a complaint that would otherwise proceed to a hearing and decision at a disciplinary inquiry. All consensual resolution agreements must be approved by the consensual resolution review panel before they are effective. By statute, this panel must have regard to the public interest when deciding whether to approve a consensual resolution agreement. An approved consensual resolution agreement has the same effect as an order made by a disciplinary committee under the Architects Act. 1

2 1.0 BACKGROUND AND AGREED FACTS 1.1 After the AIBC conducted an initial review by way of an information request to MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. ( MJMA and/or the Firm ), the investigations committee initiated a complaint, with the AIBC acting as the complainant in accordance with Rule. 3.2 of the AIBC s Rules for the Professional Conduct Process (the Rules ). The complaint related to the Firm s conduct in regard to: i. its apparent breach of the Architects Act and AIBC Bylaws by practising architecture in the province of British Columbia prior to receiving a Certificate of Practice, and ii. submitting a fee proposal that appeared to contain an offer for free, speculative services for the first phase of the project described further below. Pursuant to Rule 3.4 of the Rules, and as detailed below, the investigation was not limited in scope to the circumstance that was the subject of the complaint or concern that initially led to the investigation. 1.2 After completing an investigation, the investigations committee recommended that the matter should proceed to a disciplinary inquiry for determination of whether certain breaches of the Architects Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 17 (the Act ), the AIBC Bylaws and the applicable council rulings in the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct ( Code of Ethics ) were breached by MJMA. 1.3 MJMA chose to enter into consensual resolution discussions with the AIBC. 1.4 The relevant sections of the Act, AIBC Bylaws and relevant council rulings in the Code of Ethics are: Architects Act Section 27 Certificate of practice 27 (1) The council may issue a certificate of practice to an architectural firm, member or licensee. (2) A person must not practise or offer to practise the profession of architecture unless the person (a) is a holder of a current certificate of practice, or (b) practises as authorized by this Act through an architectural firm that is a holder of a current certificate of practice. Architects Act Section 63 Further prohibitions 63 (1) Subject to this Act, a person not registered as a member or as an architectural firm must not use or be held out under the title "architect" or any similar title or description or use, and must not advertise or be held out under any name, title, addition or description implying, or likely to lead the public to infer, that a registration under this Act applies. 2

3 (2) A person or architectural firm that does not hold a certificate of practice must not be held out or implied to hold a certificate of practice. (3) A person not licensed under this Act must not be held out or implied to be licensed under this Act. Bylaw 33.3 An architect shall comply with the Architects Act of British Columbia, the Bylaws under the Architects Act, and Council rulings. and Bylaw Except in an approved competition, an architect shall provide no form of service until retained and in receipt of the client s instructions. (f) Each proposal for architectural services, and (ii) client-architect agreement (contract), must contain the statement that it is in compliance with the AIBC Bylaws, including especially (but not limited to) Bylaw 28: Professional Engagement and Bylaw 34.16; the Tariff of Fees for Architectural Services; and the Code of Ethics. Refer to Bulletin 67. Rules (c) through (f) above reinforce client awareness of an architect s professional obligations along with the need to articulate mutual understandings before commencing services that being very much a matter of consumer protection as well as being of benefit to the architect. 1.5 The parties agree that the relevant circumstances leading to the investigation and this agreement are set out below. 1.6 MJMA was incorporated in Ontario on March 28, It became registered in British Columbia on January 23, There are five shareholders: Viktors Jaunkalns Architect AIBC; Andrew Filarski Architect AIBC; Edward (Ted) Watson Architect AIBC; David Miller Architect AIBC; and Robert Allen. 1.7 The Firm holds a Certificate of Practice issued by the Ontario Association of Architects. It was issued an AIBC Certificate of Practice on April 29, 2014, the circumstances of which are detailed below. 1.8 On August 20, 2012, the AIBC received a Letter of Intent from MJMA that advised of the Firm s intention to submit a proposal collaborating with a local architectural firm to provide architectural services for the UBC Aquatic Centre (the UBC Project ). MJMA advised the institute that if successful, it would apply for a Temporary Licence. The Firm s Letter of Intent confirmed it would not provide any services until it received a Temporary (or Full) License. 1.9 On October 31, 2012, the Firm submitted an application for a new architectural corporation in British Columbia. Per AIBC requirements, the majority owners of the Firm were Architects AIBC. Mr. Miller was listed as the President and Mr. Jaunkalns as Vice President. 3

4 1.10 On November 19, 2012, the AIBC s Licensing Department wrote to MJMA and advised that its application had been reviewed and received preliminary approval. The letter was not addressed to any specific individual at the Firm but rather to Members of 1.11 In the AIBC s letter, the Firm was advised that to complete registration it needed to provide: (i) a copy of the Certificate of Registration from the BC Registrar of Companies; and (ii) a copy of the company letterhead that identifies each Architect AIBC responsible for the practice of architecture. The letter reiterated that the application had not yet received final approval and while it made no specific reference to the Certificate of Practice, the letter was sent via an to a KT at the Firm, which advised: The application to register Maclennan [sic] Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. has been reviewed. I ve attached a copy of the consent letter for the BC Registry and the preliminary approval letter requesting the additional documents to complete the application. Once received, we will issue the new COP and process the fees In February 2014, the AIBC received information that MJMA appeared to have provided a Fee Proposal for Architectural Services (the Fee Proposal ) for the Okanagan Athletic Club (the Okanagan Project ), a for-profit private development The AIBC also learned in April 2014 that MJMA appeared to be working with a local firm on the UBC Project without having applied for a Temporary Licence or having obtained a Certificate of Practice MJMA provided the AIBC with the additional documents to complete its registration on April 23, 2014, and as noted above, the AIBC issued a Certificate of Practice to the Firm on April 29, On May 8, 2014, the AIBC wrote to MJMA with an information request regarding the Firm s apparent breach of the Architects Act by practising architecture in British Columbia prior to receiving a Certificate of Practice in respect of three projects: the Okanagan Project; the UBC Project; and the Spirit Rock Climbing Centre in Kimberly, BC (the Kimberly Project ) In its June 6, 2014 response to the information request, the Firm admitted that despite best intentions it had become acutely aware that it had made an error in regard to its application for a Certificate of Practice by failing to provide the additional documents that had been requested to complete the process. With respect to the British Columbia projects, the Firm explained: Okanagan Project: MJMA was contacted in September 2013 by the developer. The Firm wrote that it had an erroneous understanding that we were holders of an AIBC Certificate of Practice. Due to our misunderstanding, we proceeded as if we had a Certificate of Practice. UBC Project: MJMA explained they initiated pursuit of the UBC Project and had notified the AIBC of its intention to pursue the work. The Firm followed up on that Letter of Intent dated August 20, 2012, by applying for individual registration of its then non-aibc registered 4

5 members, Mr. Watson, Mr. Jaunkalns, and Mr. Filarski, which registrations were approved by the AIBC via reciprocity on August 31, The Firm stated that when it received the AIBC s letter dated November 19, 2012, the Controller erroneously understood the remaining requirements to obtain registration. The management of the Firm was not advised that the required paperwork to complete registration had not been forwarded and the Firm moved forward believing all documentation required for the processing of the Certificate of Practice had been submitted and a Certificate of Practice was in place. The Firm acknowledged that MJMA s operating partners ought to have been aware of the status of the Certificate of Practice. Kimberly Project: Mr. Watson provided some planning advice to a member of his family who was developing the Kimberly Project. He recommended a local BC architect be hired and that advice was followed MJMA also advised that it provides confirmation of insurance upon execution of a contract but advised it understood now that the status of a firm regarding professional liability insurance should be included in the proposal for services. 2.0 ADMISSIONS 2.1 MJMA acknowledges and admits that it contravened sections 27 and 63 of the Architects Act and AIBC Bylaw 33.3 by failing to obtain a valid AIBC Certificate of Practice prior to the offer or provision of architectural services in British Columbia, by failing to notify the AIBC prior to commencing work on the UBC Project and by failing to notify the AIBC prior to commencing work on subsequent projects, namely the Okanagan Project. 2.2 MJMA further acknowledges and admits it contravened AIBC Bylaw and council ruling (f) by failing to provide the requisite notification as to bylaw compliance in the Fee Proposal for the Okanagan Project. 3.0 PENALTY AGREEMENT 3.1 In light of the circumstances of this matter, including MJMA s cooperation and admissions, the following penalty and terms have been agreed upon by MJMA and the AIBC: A reprimand to be recorded against ; Imposition of a fine in the amount of $ against MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. payable to the AIBC, within 30 days after the approval of this Agreement by the consensual resolution review panel; This Agreement, including any Schedules hereto, shall be published in a form established by the AIBC, in keeping with the AIBC Bylaw 36.20, including web site publication, and distribution to members, associates and honorary members of the AIBC. 5

6 3.1.4 MJMA acknowledges and agrees that failure to comply with the sanctions in paragraph 3.1.2, above will result in the Firm s removal from the AIBC register (suspension) and cancellation of its Certificate of Practice until such time as it satisfies the sanction in this Agreement, at which time its application for re-registration will be considered; and MJMA acknowledges and agrees that in the event that it is removed from the register (suspended) for failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement, it must, within 10 days of being advised in writing by the AIBC of its suspension, satisfy the standard professional requirements and obligations for ceasing practice, including: i) Returning its certificate of practice to the AIBC; ii) Returning any project site signs under its firm name to the AIBC; iii) Providing the AIBC with a letter of undertaking indicating that the firm has: a) Concluded all architectural business operations under its firm name; b) Assigned, with client consent, any ongoing projects under its firm name to another architectural firm holding a current certificate of practice. In this portion of the undertaking letter, MJMA is to provide the project owner s name, project name and location and the name of the architectural firm assuming responsibility for the project. This list must include all projects undertaken which are not completed; c) Informed the appropriate officials and authorities having jurisdiction, in writing, of the firm s status on any projects submitted for municipal approval as a development permit application, building permit application, subdivision application or any other municipal process. Such notification letters must be copied to the AIBC; d) Removed project site signs which identified the firm or, alternatively, amended such project signs by removing the firm s identity; and e) Confirmed that MJMA will not refer to itself as an architectural firm and that the firm will not practice architecture or offer to provide architectural services as defined by the Architects Act, until such time as he has been returned to the AIBC register In the event of a suspension arising out of this Agreement, the AIBC may publish a Notice of Suspension and notify members and other interested parties as it deems appropriate. 4.0 COSTS 4.1 Payment by MJMA of costs for this consensual resolution, fixed at an amount of $ payable to the AIBC within 30 days following approval of this Agreement by the panel. 4.2 In reaching an agreement on costs, the parties acknowledge that costs are not considered a punitive measure that addresses the conduct that is the subject of this Agreement. Rather, agreement on 6

7 costs is an acknowledgement of the institute s costs resulting from the consensual agreement and the consensual resolution process. The parties have referred to the AIBC s Consensual Resolution Costs Guidelines in agreeing to the amount of costs. 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This Consensual Resolution Agreement may be executed and delivered in one or more counterparts, whether by facsimile transmission or other electronic means, with the same effect as if all parties had signed and delivered the same document and all counterparts. MJMA acknowledges that he has been given adequate opportunity to seek legal or other professional advice with respect to the negotiation, execution and consequences of this Agreement and has taken such advice or freely elected not to do so. The facts and terms of this Consensual Resolution Agreement are acknowledged and agreed to by MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. and the AIBC, represented by Mark Vernon, CPA, CA, CPA (IL), CEO. Approved by the Consensual Resolution Review Panel on June 3,

8 SCHEDULE REASONS FOR PENALTY TO CONSENSUAL RESOLUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN MACLENNAN JAUNKALNS MILLER ARCHITECTS LTD. and THE ARCHITECTURAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1.0 REASONS FOR PENALTY 1.1 MJMA and the AIBC agree that the aforementioned Penalty Agreement is in keeping with the agreed facts and admissions made by MJMA that have resulted in the disciplinary matter proceeding by way of consensual resolution. The Public Interest and Principles of Sentencing (Sanctions) 1.2 Consensual Resolution operates under section 51.1 of the Architects Act and AIBC Bylaws 36.0 through The proposed admission and disciplinary action do not take effect until they are approved by a hearing panel. In Law Society of BC v. Rai, 2011 LSBC 2, a hearing panel considered an agreement between a lawyer and the regulator on agreed facts and disciplinary action. In considering whether to accept the proposal, the Panel discussed the specific Law Society rule that allowed for such a process: [6] This proceeding operates (in part) under Rule 4-22 of the Law Society Rules. That provision allows for the Discipline Committee of the Law Society and the Respondent to agree that professional misconduct took place and agree to a specific disciplinary action, including costs. This provision is to facilitate settlements, by providing a degree of certainty. However, the conditional admission provisions have a safeguard. The proposed admission and disciplinary action do not take effect until they are accepted by a hearing panel. [7] The Panel must be satisfied that the proposed admission on the substantive matter is appropriate. In most cases, this will not be a problem. The Panel must also be satisfied that the proposed disciplinary action is acceptable. What does that mean? This Panel believes that a disciplinary action is acceptable if it is within the range of a fair and reasonable disciplinary action in all the circumstances. The Panel thus 8

9 has a limited role. The question the Panel has to ask itself is, not whether it would have imposed exactly the same disciplinary action, but rather, Is the proposed disciplinary action within the range of a fair and reasonable disciplinary action? [8] This approach protects the public by ensuring that the proposed disciplinary action is within the range of fair and reasonable disciplinary actions. In other words, a degree of deference should be given to the parties to craft a disciplinary action. However, if the disciplinary action is outside of the range of what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, then the Panel should reject the proposed disciplinary action in the public interest. 1.3 In reaching this submission on penalty, the AIBC has given due consideration to the range of sanctions that have been imposed for similar conduct in the past. The parties submit that the penalty is consistent with well-established principles of sentencing as well as the public interest in professional disciplinary matters that underlie these principles. 1.4 These well-established principles of sentencing require that when determining an appropriate penalty the parties must carefully consider all relevant factors that apply to sentencing, which are: Ogilvie Factors (i) maintaining the reputation of the profession; (ii) correcting and deterring misconduct; (iii) upholding the integrity and professional standards of conduct in the profession; and (iv) protecting the public. 1.5 In assessing an appropriate penalty, professional regulatory bodies in B.C. often rely upon the factors considered in Law Society of British Columbia v. Ogilvie [1999] LSBC 17 (the Ogilvie Factors ). 1.6 It is for the parties to decide on the circumstances of the case whether the Ogilvie Factors apply and if so, whether they are aggravating or mitigating. The Ogilvie Factors include the following: (a) the nature and gravity of the conduct proven; (b) the age and experience of the respondent; (c) the previous character of the respondent, including details of prior discipline; (d) the impact upon the victim; (e) the advantage gained, or to be gained, by the respondent; (f) the number of times the offending conduct occurred; (g) whether the respondent has acknowledged the misconduct and taken steps to disclose and redress the wrong and the presence or absence of other mitigating circumstances; (h) the possibility of remediating or rehabilitating the respondent; (i) the impact upon the respondent of criminal or other sanctions or penalties; (j) the impact of the proposed penalty on the respondent; (k) the need for specific and general deterrence; (l) the need to ensure the public s confidence in the integrity of the profession; and 9

10 (m) the range of penalties in similar cases. 1.7 While the parties have considered all of the Ogilvie Factors, they have placed greatest significance on the following: the nature and gravity of the conduct proven; the advantage gained, or to be gained, by the respondent; the number of times the offending conduct occurred; whether the respondent has acknowledged the misconduct and taken steps to disclose and redress the wrong and the presence or absence of other mitigating circumstances; the need for specific and general deterrence; and the need to ensure the public s confidence in the integrity of the profession The nature and gravity of the conduct 1.8 From the AIBC s perspective, the allegations and admissions made by MJMA are of a reasonably serious nature as the breaches relate to fundamental aspects of the practice of architecture. Age and experience of the respondent 1.9 MJMA has been a registered firm in Ontario since Its architects are registered in multiple jurisdictions. The Firm has operated for more than 20 years and its architects are experienced enough that it ought to have been aware of the status of its Certificate of Practice prior to offering or providing architectural services in British Columbia. The previous character of the respondent, including details of prior discipline 1.10 MJMA has no prior professional conduct record with the AIBC and the Firm has acknowledged the unprofessional conduct both during the investigation and after charges were confirmed. The Firm s agreement to enter into consensual resolution confirms its acknowledgement, and it has been fully cooperative throughout this process. The impact on the victim 1.11 There is no specific individual victim or third-party complainant in this case. However, the AIBC has a mandate to protect the public interest by ensuring that architects are serving the public in an ethical and professional manner, including abiding by the Architects Act (the Act ) and Bylaw requirements, reporting any contraventions of the Act to the institute, and promoting and encouraging compliance wherever possible. That a firm without a valid Certificate of Practice was effectively permitted to secure the UBC and Okanagan Projects is contrary to the Act and the public interest. 10

11 The advantage gained, or to be gained, by the respondent 1.12 MJMA benefited by successfully being hired to work on the UBC Project when it was not qualified due to it not having a valid Certificate of Practice or Temporary License to work with the local firm. Further, although it was not ultimately chosen for the Okanagan Project, it still was considered and compared against other firms that followed the proper procedure and rules. The number of times the offending conduct occurred 1.13 While there were multiple projects at issue, the lack of project licensing can be seen as a single event. Whether the respondent has acknowledged the misconduct and taken steps to disclose and redress the wrong and the presence or absence of other mitigating circumstances 1.14 By entering into this Agreement, MJMA has acknowledged that it has been unprofessional. Throughout the investigation, the Firm and its representative Mr. Watson have been cooperative and forthcoming with information Upon notification of the AIBC s concerns in the information request, the Firm acknowledged it had made a mistake. The Firm advised that it had proceeded to work on the UBC and Okanagan Projects in the belief that a Certificate of Practice had been granted when it had not. The Firm acknowledged that management should have made the necessary inquiries to confirm the Certificate of Practice was in place During a telephone interview with Mr. Watson, who spoke on behalf of the Firm, he advised that that the Firm had learned a hard lesson from the situation it was in. Mr. Watson advised that as a result of the complaint, the Firm realized it required a better system for tracking administrative obligations such as submitting paperwork or payments for continuing education in other jurisdictions and that the Firm had revised its procedures. Mr. Watson advised that the Firm had created a spreadsheet to track various administrative matters with responsibility for maintaining that spreadsheet being assigned to the Firm s Controller who reported to one of the Firm s partners MJMA has obtained a valid AIBC Certificate of Practice. The possibility of remediating or rehabilitating the respondent 1.18 Participation in the AIBC investigation process should refresh and alert MJMA to the importance of complying with the Act, the Bylaws under the Act and Council Rulings In a telephone interview, Mr. Watson advised that as a result of the complaint the Firm is far more aware of its obligations As noted above, the Firm has now obtained a valid Certificate of Practice. 11

12 The impact on the respondent of criminal or other sanctions or penalties 1.21 There are no other criminal, civil or regulatory sanctions related to the conduct at issue as of the date of the approval of this Agreement. The need for specific and general deterrence 1.22 Specific deterrence means deterring the respondent from repeating the conduct in question. In this case, MJMA and the AIBC are confident that the combination of the reprimand and fine will remind MJMA of the need to comply with the Act, the Bylaws under the Act and Council Rulings General deterrence is a sentencing objective promoting reduction of improper conduct in the community by the example, message or influence established by the penalty in the present matter. In the Agreement, the proposed penalties will serve to educate and caution other architectural firms both in British Columbia and otherwise as to the importance of obtaining a Certificate of Practice prior to offering or performing architectural services in B.C. and ensuring that fee proposals contain the requisite notification as to bylaw compliance. The need to ensure the public s confidence in the integrity of the profession 1.24 The AIBC and MJMA submit that the proposed Penalty Agreement, particularly publication, will enhance the public s confidence in the integrity of the profession in a number of ways. The public has the right to expect that architectural firms offering and providing architectural services in British Columbia are regulated and that those offering services have obtained the necessary licence to do so In addition, this matter is being resolved through a statutorily-mandated consensual resolution process. Notice of the Agreement in this matter will be published and made available to members and other registrants, and the general public With respect to publication as a sanction, all approved consensual resolution agreements are published to the membership and made public per AIBC Bylaw 36.20, which came into effect in July In 2004, the AIBC s Professional Conduct Board passed Guidelines for the Retention, Disclosure and Publication of AIBC Professional Conduct Records, which established a publication and transparency baseline expectation for all disciplinary matters. The range of penalties imposed in similar cases 1.27 The following AIBC precedents demonstrate the penalties and sanctions that have been imposed in similar circumstances In AIBC file No , several allegations were forwarded against a senior, experienced architect who had been practicing in Alberta since The architect proceeded on a project in BC without having a clear understanding of BC regulations and admitted to the following breaches: practising the profession of architecture without holding a certificate of practice; 12

13 practising and holding himself out under the title architect prior to being registered in B.C. as an architect; carrying on business through a corporation whose name indicated it practised architecture without a valid certificate of practice; failing to seal drawings submitted for a development permit; failing to execute a proper written client-architect agreement for a project prior to commencing work; and failing to comply with the insurance and bylaw notification requirements. The architect had no prior professional conduct record with the AIBC and was fully cooperative throughout the process. He had also expressed remorse during the investigation and the circumstances of the unprofessional conduct arose during a time of business and personal difficult which resulted in emotional and financial challenges. The matter proceeded by way of consensual resolution and the Consensual Resolution Panel approved a reprimand, fine of $3000, completion of the AIBC Ethics Act and Bylaws course, a condition on the architect s Certificate of Practice that he notify the AIBC prior to providing architectural services in British Columbia for a period of two years, publication of the agreement to AIBC members and $500 in costs In AIBC File No , an architect admitted to breaching Section 27 and 28 of the Act and AIBC Bylaw 33.3 by failing to ensure that his business held a Certificate of Practice (COP), mistakenly believing a COP held under another firm name would suffice. The architect also failed to seal development permit drawings, unaware of the requirement to do so. At the beginning of the investigation, the architect moved quickly to take the steps required to comply with the Bylaws and regulatory expectations for architectural firms. A Consensual Resolution Panel approved a reprimand, $1,000 fine, completion of the Ethics Act and Bylaws course as well as Building Code II and Management of the Project, and publication of the agreement to AIBC members In reviewing the available precedents, it was determined that the majority of the prior cases that involved a breach of Bylaw and council ruling (f) generally also include consideration of circumstances where the architect provided services prior to having a client-architect agreement. Typically, added on to that are the allegations that in those cases the architect also failed to notify the client of his insurance status and bylaw compliance. The case at hand is distinguishable from those other cases because it relates only to not advising of bylaw compliance in the Fee Proposal MJMA submitted on the Okanagan Project. In MJMA s situation, the Firm did not ultimately obtain the Okanagan Project commission and as such there was no client-architect agreement For further consideration, in AIBC File No an architect provided architectural services prior to completion and execution of a client-architect agreement, failed to notify the client of the terms and conditions of the architect s professional liability insurance and failed to include in the eventual client-architect agreement that it complied with AIBC Bylaws. The matter proceeded by way of a Joint Submission to a Disciplinary Inquiry. The Hearing Panel considered the admissions to be of moderate gravity and noted that it was important to emphasize that client-architect agreements that outline insurance liability protects the public and the profession. The architect acknowledged his errors and was 13

14 cooperative with the investigation. There was no advantage gained by the architect and the client did not suffer any harm. The Panel accepted the joint submission of a reprimand, completion by the architect of the Ethics Act and Bylaw course, and publication to the AIBC membership MJMA and the AIBC submit that that the proposed Penalty Agreement is fair and reasonable, keeping in mind that the Firm: (i) has no prior professional conduct history; (ii) has accepted responsibility for its actions; and (iii) obtained a valid Certificate of Practice. The parties further submit the proposed Penalty Agreement does fit within the range of sanctions that have been imposed in the past and it is within the general range of fair and reasonable disciplinary actions. 2.0 PUBLICATION 2.1 A report of this Agreement will be published in keeping with AIBC Bylaw 36.20, including web site publication for a period of six months and distribution to members and other registrants of the AIBC. 2.2 Publication helps fulfill the important transparency expectation that the public has of professional regulators and enhances the public s confidence in the integrity of the profession as a self-regulated entity. Publication to members and other registrants acts as a further deterrent and as an educational message with respect to ethical and professional conduct matters. 2.3 While misconduct by architects rarely attracts the kind of public and media attention seen by other regulated professions, architects behavior must still satisfy the reasonable expectations of the public and must maintain public confidence and respect. The proposed penalties strive to find balance between the circumstances of the case and the recognition that public confidence in the competency of the profession must be upheld. 3.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This Schedule may be executed and delivered in one or more counterparts, whether by facsimile transmission or other electronic means, with the same effect as if all parties had signed and delivered the same document and all counterparts. acknowledges that it has been given adequate opportunity to seek legal or other professional advice with respect to the negotiation, execution and consequences of this Schedule and has taken such advice or freely elected not to do so. The facts and terms of this Schedule Reasons for Penalty to Consensual Resolution Agreement are acknowledged and agreed to by MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architect Ltd. and the AIBC, represented by Mark Vernon, CPA, CA, CPA (IL), CEO. For further information on the AIBC s consensual resolution process, please contact Meagan Sands, Paralegal, Professional Conduct and Illegal Practice at msands@aibc.ca. 14