ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

21F-P19-023-BTR · Board of Technical Registration · 2020-10-29

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

AHLER HALHBER aka

JAMES HALAREWICZ

P.E. (CIVIL) #44459,

P.E. (ARCHITECTURAL) #46059

R.A. #50925

Registrant,

Respondent.

No. 21F-P19-023-BTR

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 22, 2020

APPEARANCES: Respondent Ahler Halhber failed to appear. The Arizona State Board of Technical Registration was represented by Assistant Attorney General Scott Donald.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Respondent Ahler Halhber held three licenses with the Board of Technical Registration (Board) through the State of Arizona. License number 44459 was for civil engineering, license number 46059 was for architectural engineering, and license number 50925 was for an architectural license.

Respondent resided in Vancouver, British Colombia and it is unknown how much business he transacts in Arizona.

On or about July 2, 2018, the Board received a professional renewal form for license number 44459 from Respondent. In that form, Respondent answered in the affirmative to question three which inquired as to any pending investigations by any regulatory agencies. Since the question was answered in the affirmative, the form also required Respondent to provide any relevant documents along with written explanation, however, Respondent failed to provide the same.

On or about May 17, 2019, the Board received a professional renewal form for license number 46059. In that form, Respondent answered in the negative to all of the questions.

On or about November 26, 2019 the Board received a professional renewal form for license number 50925. In that form, Respondent again answered in the negative to all of the questions.

On or about December 9, 2019, Board staff began an investigation into whether Respondent was the subject of disciplinary actions or investigations by another regulatory body based upon his answers in the three applications.

On or about December 11, 2019, the Board informed Respondent of its investigation and requested he submit a response thereto by January 3, 2020.

The Board assigned Douglas Kraemer to investigate Respondent’s renewals based upon the responses given.

Mr. Kraemer testified at hearing as to the results of his investigation.

Mr. Kraemer testified that Respondent was the subject of disciplinary actions in British Columbia dating back to August of 2016. At that time, the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC) was investigating Respondent as to false information contained on his website. The website indicated that Respondent was a licensed architect however, he was not licensed in British Columbia.

Mr. Kraemer then testified that Respondent was the subject of a civil claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2017 for his actions relating to the website. The case resulted in a Consent Order on or about August 4, 2017, whereby Respondent agreed to an interim injunction from practicing architecture and agreeing to remove all references to “architect” in his website and other advertising.

Mr. Kraemer testified that Respondent failed to comply with the Consent Order. In August 2018, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (APEGPBC) commenced its own investigation into Respondent.

Mr. Kraemer next testified that during the course of that investigation, it was noted that Respondent was mostly uncooperative, yet when he did participate, he often would respond with vulgar, sexist and otherwise inappropriate language. Ultimately, on or about January 19, 2019, the APEGPBC ordered that Respondent’s membership in the organization be “immediately cancelled.”

On or about January 5, 2020, Respondent provided a response to the Arizona Board investigation. His response indicated that he did not agree with the decisions reached in British Columbia and did not wish to hold the decisions binding.

Respondent failed to provide any further explanation for his actions in British Columbia. Mr. Kraemer testified that he recommended to the Board that a revocation of all three licenses based upon his failure to fully disclose the actions on all three applications would be the appropriate course of action.

On September 3, 2020, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing alleging that Respondent violated Board rules and advising the parties of the time, date, and location of an evidentiary hearing in the matter before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency. The Complaint and Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent at its address of record with the Board.

While there was no formal response to the Complaint, on October 20, 2020, Respondent forwarded additional correspondence to the Board. In that document, Respondent admitted that he “erred in my applications for continuation as architect with Arizona.”

A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings on October 22, 2020.

The commencement of the scheduled hearing was delayed approximately 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of a representative for Respondent. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Respondent’s absence.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Board is the duly constituted authority for the regulation and control of the practices of architecture and land surveying, including the unregistered practice.

Respondent’s actions, as set forth above, constitute grounds for discipline against Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-128(C)(4) and A,R,S. § 32-145(5) as they relate to A.A.C. § R4-30-301(1), which states, “[a] registrant shall not submit any materially false statements or fail to disclose any material facts requested in connection with an application for registration or certification, or in response to a subpoena.” By failing to fully disclose the AIBC action in the registration in July 2018, and then failing to disclose the APEGPBC disciplinary action in the May and November 2019 registrations, Respondent failed to comply with A.A.C. § R4-30-301(1). Further, Respondent’s actions in the AIBC and APEGPBC actions demonstrated that Respondent has an inability to be regulated. Respondent violated the AIBC Consent Order and then his interactions with the APEGPBC were highly inappropriate to say the least. Further, as recently has two days prior to the hearing, Respondent admitted he erred on the renewal forms, but still failed to acknowledge the suspension from the APEGPBC, and to take accountability for his actions. Based upon this, the Administrative Law Judge believes that revocation of Respondent’s three licenses at this time is appropriate to protect the public.

In addition, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-106.02(B), the Board is authorized to impose a civil penalty of no more than $2,000.00 per violation. Because Respondent failed to fully disclose the AIBC and APEGPBC on all three actions, a civil penalty of $6,000.00 is appropriate. Further, it is appropriate that Respondent pay the Board’s fees and costs in bringing this matter.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

It is recommended that the Board (1) revoke Respondent’s license numbers 44459, 46059 and 50925, (2) require Respondent to pay the sum of $6,000.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-106.02(B), and (3) require Respondent to pay the Board’s fees and costs in this matter.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be five days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, October 29, 2020.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Melissa Cornelius, Executive Director

Board of Technical Registration

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000