DISCIPLINE DECISIONS
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND SURVEYORS ACT, R.S.B.C 1996, c. 248, as amended SECTIONS 60, 61, 62, 63 AND 64 OF THE LAND SURVEYORS ACT, and the BYLAWS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA LAND SURVEYORS Re: Brian Elliott, British Columbia Land Surveyor Date & Place of Hearing DECISION OF THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT ISSUED July 9, 2020 1. This hearing proceeded by way of video-conference. 2. Mr. Elliott admits that: (a)
In preparing subdivision plan EPP88569, he: (i)
did not assess relevant evidence as required under Survey and Plan Rule 1-2(4);
(ii) marked a post cap with designations under the Land Title Act, contrary to Survey and Plan Rule 1-9(4); (iii) did not set a reference marker for each post forming part of the boundary in the manner required by Survey and Plan Rule 1-9(1); (iv) did not provide bearings and distances for all boundaries in the manner required by Survey and Plan Rule 3-9(1); (v) did not show, using “not found” or “NF”, monuments that could not be located, in the manner required by Survey and Plan Rule 3-8(4); (vi) plotted the primary parcel designation using a broken font, contrary to Survey and Plan Rule 3-12(1); (vii) did not indicate the origin of found posts set on Plan H852. 38
August 2020 | the LINK
June 10, 2020 Sidney, British Columbia (b)
In preparing a building location certificate for Lot 32, Section 1, Township 84, Range 19, West of the 6th Meridian, Peace River District, Plan EPP46435, he did not identify Right of Way L22066, Right of Way X36720, Statutory Building Scheme CA4142531, or the vertical datum used.
3. Mr. Elliott admits that his actions were inconsistent with practice methods described in the Professional Reference Manual, and amount to both a breach of Bylaws 14.1(b) and 14.1(c)(i) and unprofessional conduct. DISPOSITION 4. Mr. Elliott received his commission on January 12, 2009. Although he does not have a previous discipline history, the Panel notes that since 2015 there have been at least four Conditional Plan and Practice Reviews and several referrals to the Practice Advisory Panel. 5. Although the shortcomings identified in Mr. Elliott’s work are generally technical, they are indicative of ongoing deficiencies in Mr. Elliott’s practice. 6. In determining a penalty, this Panel must weigh the need to take a reasonable, balanced approach while considering the Association’s obligation to protect the public interest. 7. Mr. Elliott acknowledges concerns raised by the Practice Advisory Department and the Complaint Inquiry Committee. In correspondence presented to this Panel, he demonstrated a willingness to engage in more professional development.
