When the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) awarded a bundle of highway bridge design contracts to each of three major civil engineering companies in late 2010/early 2011, little did they know that it would lead to the Ministry’s own bridge engineers falsifying bridge load test results to cover up perhaps the biggest public works engineering fumble in Ontario’s history. Citing staffing cutbacks, the MTO (North-Western Ontario Region, Thunder Bay) encouraged the three companies to work together to establish common standards that all three companies would adhere to in undertaking their bridge designs.
It was within this arrangement that I advised the three (3) companies in early 2013 that their approach to the structural analysis of the prestressed/precast concrete box girder bridges was wrong. This wrong approach led them to a 50% underestimation of the Truck Live Load design bending moments. In other words, the three companies were designing for only half of the actual live load that they should have been designing for.
Preliminary engineering and cost estimates that I helped prepare at one of the three firms (GENIVAR/WSP Inc) had shown that for the bridge lengths involved, single span prestressed/precast concrete box girders would be a better option than steel I-Girder construction. Therefore, the decision was made that about eleven of the fourteen bridges in GENIVAR/WSP contract bundle would be of the concrete box girder design. The other two companies (McCormick Rankin/MMM Group and Hatch Mott MacDonald) were also designing concrete box girder spans for some of the bridges in their respective contract bundles.
There was a short debate via email in early January 2013 on whether each girder should be designed to carry a quarter as opposed to half of the 5-axle design truck weight. Relying on a Masters thesis report from Ryerson University that was supervised by Dr Khaled Sennah (as well as what they thought was a relevant provision of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code), the three companies decided that they would proceed to design the bridge girders for a quarter of the 63,000 kg (625 kN) design truck weight. This decision was made by Primo Scalzo, P. Eng. and Dr Kaz Simbeya, P. Eng. of GENIVAR/WSP Inc. in Thunder Bay, James Sherlock, P.Eng. of McCormick Rankin/MMM Group in Toronto, and Philip Murray, P. Eng. of Hatch Mott MacDonald in Toronto.
One year later (February 2014), when I learnt from the MTO that the three companies had in fact gone ahead and designed and built the concrete bridges for only one quarter of the design truck weight, I filed complaints with Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) against the four engineers at the three companies and another four engineers at the MTO. Relying on written opinions submitted by Dr Khaled Sennah (Ryerson University, Toronto) and Dr Michael Bartlett (University of Western Ontario, now Western University, London, Ontario), PEO’s Complaints Committee wrongly dismissed the complaints. “Wrongly dismissed” because it would be shown later, using the fraudulent load test results filed by the MTO, that Dr Bartlett’s and Dr Sennah’s written opinions were wrong and, in effect, had misled the Complaints Committee.
Once the Complaints Committee reached their wrong decision, Dr Chris Raymond of the MTO, who was not a subject of the complaints that I had filed with the Committee, filed a complaint against me. It was during the adjudication of his Complaint by the PEO Tribunal in December 2016 that I asked for the detailed version of the load test results that the MTO said it had performed on the Sturgeon River Bridge (North-Western Ontario). Next, it was during another hearing of the same Tribunal in April 2017 that I made Dr Michael Bartlett volunteer the scientific/engineering tests that should be applied to the girders of the Sturgeon River Bridge structural analysis results (theoretical) as well as the load test results (measured).
Using the agreed equilibrium tests, I showed that not only were the theoretical results wrong but also that the load test results had been falsified and doctored to match the theoretical results. With a mandate to protect the life and welfare of the Ontario public, what did Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) do when confronted with the proof that the MTO had filed fraudulent load test results to cover up their engineering consultants’ errors? PEO’s Counsel, Leah Price, resorted to lies. Let’s take an excerpt from the Appellant’s Factum that I filed with the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in which I testified that Ms. Price had tampered with the expert witness testimony of Dr Michael Bartlett, as follows.
“My Final Summation document contains 70 pages of the most elaborate, the most sophisticated, three-dimensional finite element structural analysis of the representative highway bridge (the Sturgeon River Bridge, Northwestern Ontario) involved in this Court case. Ms. Price was supposed to give it to Dr Bartlett for review. But then she failed to attach Dr Bartlett’s review comments to her Reply Submissions (pages 41 to 43 of the Appellant’s Motion Record) and failed to file the said review comments with the Tribunal. To what end? The reason Ms. Price withheld Dr Bartlett’s Review Comments document from the Tribunal was to provide herself the room to lie against the Defendant, and fabricate and plant evidence against the Defendant. And look how the Tribunal accommodated Ms. Price’s lies by omitting Dr Bartlett’s name and testimony from their decision document!”
“And all these lies at whose expense? At my expense, at the expense of the welfare and safety of the 14 million people that live in this Province, and at the expense of everyone in this Courtroom!” “Why did Ms. Price hide Dr Bartlett’s review comments from PEO’s Tribunal and from the Defendant at that hearing? It is because Dr Bartlett’s review comments would say the exact opposite of what Ms. Price claimed in her Reply Submissions.
Would Dr Bartlett give Ms. Price review comments that support the lies that she wrote in her 8th August 2017 Reply Submissions and she would not attach the said Review Comments document to her Reply Submission? She would not attach the Review Comments to her Reply Submissions just to ensure that her client (Professional Engineers Ontario) does not present the strongest case possible before the Tribunal and before this court? That would be legal malpractice on Ms. Price’s part, and one for which her client might file a complaint against her. Your honour, in your experience, is that what a lawyer would typically do: hide from the Court an important exhibit that favours her own client? And with your kind permission, may I most humbly ask, Your Honour, is that what you would do if you were PEO’s Counsel? This act of hiding Dr Bartlett’s Review Comments document from the Tribunal and the Defendant is witness tampering.”
In my Final Summation (page 134 of the Appellant’s Motion Record, I had issued a warning to Dr Bartlett, thus: “Should Dr Bartlett be provided information about my structural analysis model and the results obtained and he does not concede, both Dr Bartlett and PEO would be opening themselves up for impeachment proceedings.” Dr Bartlett heeded that warning, but Ms. Price took it upon herself to lie at will about matters that she is not qualified to opine on. She also found it convenient to remain stagnant on 05 April 2017. Every quote that she reproduced in her 3-page 8th August 2017 Reply Submission is dated 05 April 2017 or earlier. She has buried her head in the sand and shown herself to have been thoroughly defeated by the structural analysis and the proofs that I presented to the Tribunal on 29 June 2017.
(Paragraph 26, page 14 of the Appellant’s Factum) “Similarly, there is a reason that Ms. Price does not attribute the lies in her 8th August 2017 Reply Submissions to her chief technical witness Dr Michael Bartlett. If Ms. Price had put Dr Bartlett’s name on that Reply Submissions document, and Dr Bartlett subsequently found out about it, Ms. Price’s career as a lawyer would be over soon thereafter. That’s because he would expose her for the liar that she is. That’s why Ms. Price did not cite Dr Bartlett’s name in her Reply Submissions document.”
“If this Court (the Court of Appeal for Ontario) ever thought about taking the position (as the Toronto Divisional Court did) that it is not within the Court’s purview to decide on what the correct engineering solution is (Design Bending Moments = 50% of MTRUCK or 25% of MTRUCK?), Ms. Price’s lies, her witness tampering, her filing of fraudulent evidence with the Tribunal (the doctored load test results for the Sturgeon River Bridge, Northwestern Ontario), and Ms. Price’s decision to hide and bury the results of Dr Bartlett’s grillage structural analysis, all of the above actions confirm to the Court that Professional Engineers Ontario will not do the right thing on behalf of the Ontario public. I wish to assure the Court that this matter will be swept under the rug by Professional Engineers Ontario unless this Court issues an order as to what should happen to the highway bridges involved in this structural engineering fumble. Professional Engineers Ontario will sweep this matter under the rug to the great detriment of the welfare and safety of the Ontario public unless the Court deals with this aspect of this matter.”
(Paragraph 28, page 14 of the Appellant’s Factum) “Not only did I create in May/June 2017 the correct 3-dimensional finite element structural analysis model that yielded results that satisfied the two (2) crucial criteria agreed to between Dr Bartlett and myself, I also created a second model that produced the same wrong results that the MTO/PEO engineers obtained. In return, what do I and the 14 million Ontario public get from Professional Engineers Ontario? A total abdication of responsible/ethical conduct and a total let down of the Ontario public.”
When the matter moved to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Ms. Price abandoned the matter and was replaced by Mr. Nick Hambleton, and here is all that Mr. Hambleton put up as defense: (Paragraph 14, page 6 of the Responding Party’s Factum): ““The Moving Party’s Factum alleges, among other things, that counsel for PEO “lied’’, “tampered with the expert witness testimony’’, “filed fraudulent bridge load test results”, and “fabricated and planted evidence”. The Moving Party’s attacks on counsel are scandalous, and wholly untrue.”” Worse, to the charge that she defrauded and swindled the people of Ontario by her campaign of lies to ensure that those bridges don’t get upgraded, Ms. Price had absolutely no defense.
“But not only did Ms. Price abandon the matter at the Court of Appeal hearing, Dr Bartlett and the other engineers have abandoned Ms. Price since reading through my Final Summation. None of the engineers have been willing to commit perjury for Ms. Price’s and PEO’s benefit.”
Earlier, at the Divisional Court where I had pled with Court to decide on what the correct girder design forces should be, Ms. Price did not want any part of the truth and fact finding: (Paragraph 34, page 12 of PEO’s Factum) “The Appellant has no right to appeal from reasons for decision. The right to appeal is only from the decision or order itself. Accordingly, the “bridge design” issues raised by the appellant in his Factum cannot and should not be dealt with by this Court.”
At this point, I must inform the public that none of this would have come to light but for my tenacious determination as well as very lucky breaks. At the end of the 3-day hearing in April 2017, the two (2) parties were poised to deliver their final summations (i.e. closing arguments). But it was already 6.00 p.m. in the evening and at least one Tribunal member had a flight to catch in just a couple of hours. So, there was not enough time for the presentation of final summations. But there was enough time for the two parties and the Tribunal members to sit around “as friends” and chat for a little while.
Based on that conversation, it was clear to me that had final summations been presented by the two parties that evening, the Tribunal would have (wrongly) ruled that 25% of the Design Truck Weight was the correct solution. In fact, as a result of my clear reading of the Tribunal’s thinking, I was able to move for and secure/force an electronic (remote) hearing, which took place a few weeks after the 03 to 05 April 2017 hearing in Toronto. The purpose of that meeting was for me to isolate for the Tribunal what was actually said by Dr Michael Bartlett (on the audio recording of the hearing) as opposed to what the Tribunal thought it heard him say. As later proved by the transcript of the hearing, I was right and the Tribunal was wrong about Dr Bartlett’s testimony.
Further, after the April 2017 hearing in Toronto, the PEO’s Tribunal issued in writing a schedule for the filing of final summations. In reaction, I offered a few changes to the said schedule, and the Tribunal responded by shortening the timelines whereas I had asked for more time to prepare my final summation. What I did next was to go behind everyone’s back to send an email directly to the chair of the Tribunal, Mr. Henry Tang, without copying anyone else. Fortunately, Mr. Tang had let slip his private email address when he personally issued the final summation schedule from his private email account rather than issue it through PEO’s Tribunal desk. It was a lucky break, indeed, because the chair accepted my plea and sent out a revised schedule in which I was given four (4) weeks to file my final summation by June 15, 2017. Why is that important? Because the actions that I have taken on this matter over the course of these past 8 years will benefit society greatly.
It was the right decision on the chair’s part because it was true, and a fact, that I had to prepare for a job interview with the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs in Winnipeg, scheduled for 16 May 2017, which I actually attended. Had Mr. Tang not been level-headed, and had he denied my request, none of this would have come to the public’s knowledge. What would I have told the public had I not been allowed the time to build the computer models for the solution of this problem and then submit the same to the Tribunal? What use would it have been to build the models after the wrong verdict had been rendered by the Tribunal?
Finally, consider also that the hearing had been initially set for early October 2016. I had for months informed PEO that I would not be able to travel to Toronto for the hearing and requested an electronic hearing instead. PEO opposed the electronic hearing and, since both parties must agree in order for the said proposal to be approved by the Tribunal, the electronic hearing proposal was denied. The hearing date came in October 2016 and I did not show up in Toronto. All five (5) Tribunal members were there and PEO’s Counsel Leah Price was there in the hearing room at PEO’s offices in Toronto, but I was in Thunder Bay. I was not in Toronto because I couldn’t afford to. The Prosecution (PEO) was happy and willing to proceed with the hearing but the chair, not comfortable with that scenario, told the other members that he would not proceed with the hearing, excused himself, and left. So, quorum failed. Mr. Henry Tang was appointed acting chair, and he adjourned the meeting.
Subsequently, a new member was appointed to replace the previous chair, and the hearing was re-scheduled for December 12 to 14, 2016. I was able to get to Toronto the morning of Monday 12 December 2016 and attended the hearing in person for that one day. But I also informed the Tribunal that I was not going to be able to afford to stay in Toronto beyond Monday 12 December. The Tribunal approved, in the face of unwavering opposition by Ms. Price, that I could attend the rest of the hearing (Tuesday and Wednesday) by electronic means, which I did. So, once again, had Mr. Tang’s predecessor not exercised the right judgment in deciding that he would not chair a hearing of such import without the other party’s participation, I would never have had the opportunity to prove that MTO’s theoretical results were wrong as they failed the rotational equilibrium test. Nor would I have been in a position to prove that MTO’s load test results had been falsified and doctored to match the theoretical results. Further, had the Chair not granted my request, the people of Ontario would be living with these deficient highway bridges forever and, as far as my personal fortunes go, Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) would have come down on me like a ton of bricks … for doing the right thing.
Of course, none of the above acts of the Tribunal chairs can compensate for the Tribunal’s claim that they were not qualified to rule on the correct design live load despite hearing testimony from two (2) University Professors of structural engineering who were called by the Prosecution (PEO) as expert witnesses. None of those acts can atone for the Tribunal’s decision to expunge from their decision document the names and the testimony of those two expert witnesses. Have you ever heard of a court judge expunging from their written decision any reference to the names and testimony of the expert witnesses called by the prosecution? What exactly did the Tribunal and Professional Engineers Ontario have to hide? It is to answer the above questions that I have written this book, but also to provide the people of Ontario the opportunity to respond and demand accountability of those who perpetrated this outrageous scandal.
After all, this scandal involves at least twenty (20), perhaps as many as seventy (70), highway bridges built brand new in the past decade at an average cost of about $3 million per bridge. Above all, public safety is at stake. Beyond bringing this gigantic scandal before the Ontario public, I am going to seek political power to ensure that the defrauding and swindling of the Ontario tax payers does not stand in any shape or form.
I have already expended too much of my personal capital to let this malfeasance stand. The Ministry of Transportation Ontario and Professional Engineers Ontario had on their team four university professors: one each from the University of Montreal, University of Toronto, University of Western Ontario (now, Western University), and Ryerson University in Toronto. And if that wasn’t enough, they also enlisted the help of a bridge engineer from the famous bridge engineering firm of Buckland & Taylor in British Columbia. But I stood firm on behalf of the people of Ontario, an immovable stalwart, and ran out as winner and Champion.
Soon afterwards, Professor Michael Bartlett took an unusually early retirement from the University of Western Ontario, Professor Khaled Sennah took an unusually early retirement from Ryerson University, Tony Merlo (P.Eng.) who was Manager – Highway Bridge Office for Ontario Government and who had testified before PEO’s Tribunal resigned, and Nicolas Theodor (P.Eng.) who was Head of Bridge Design at the Bridge Office and who had testified before PEO’s Tribunal also resigned. Last but not the least, Dr Chris Raymond, who had filed the complaint with PEO against me (which is what started it all) watched me turn the structural engineering problem completely against him. Dr Raymond not only resigned from the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (where he had been the Chair of the Contracts Award Committee) but he requested that PEO not publish his new employer’s name/address on PEO’s online Members Directory. What a feat on my part to have stood alone and defeated all of these men! But none of these men has faced an official/legal reckoning and punishment to date.
Therefore, on 08 October 2020, I turned this matter over to Hon. Michael Gravelle (MPP) for investigation and hearing by the Ontario Legislative Assembly. My advice to Mr. Gravelle was for him to apply the following test: he should ask the Registrar of Professional Engineers Ontario (Mr. Johnny Zuccon, P.Eng.) if PEO has in their possession an opinion issued and signed by a licensed engineer, backed by structural engineering analysis, that disproves my 14 August 2017 finding and proof that the bridges were wrongly designed for only one quarter (25%) of the weight of the CL-625 Design Truck as opposed to the correct value of 50%, including my finding that the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) falsified and doctored the load test results for the Sturgeon River Bridge located in Northwestern Ontario, which is a crime.
PEO’s counter-proof must be dated 15 August 2017 or later because such a counter-proof could not have been issued by any engineer earlier than the date (14 August 2017) on which I issued my opinion, with proof, to PEO. If PEO doesn’t have a counter-proof and if PEO doesn’t undertake to provide that counter-proof right away to Mr. Gravelle and, by extension, the Ontario Legislative Assembly, then, right there is the evidence that the Ontario Legislative Assembly needs.
Listening for Mr. Gary Weiss’ defense against the criminal allegation levelled against the Ministry of Transportation Ontario for the fraudulent doctoring of the Bridge Load Test results for the Sturgeon River Bridge (Highway 11, Northwestern Ontario)?
Counterfeit Load Test Results of the Sturgeon River Bridge
- I wish to challenge the authenticity of the Surgeon River Bridge Load Test results submitted by the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO).
- I have maintained that the girder forces must satisfy rotational equilibrium about an axis parallel to the Bridge’s longitudinal axis. Dr Bartlett agrees that the girder forces must satisfy rotational equilibrium about an axis parallel to the Bridge’s longitudinal axis (page 101/102 of the Transcript of my Cross-Examination of Dr Bartlett and page 80 of 242 of my Final Summation). Furthermore, under cross-examination, Dr Bartlett maintained that the Torsional Reactions have to be included in the said equilibrium analysis (Paragraph 1, Page 107 of the Transcript of my cross examination of Dr Bartlett).
- The Torsional Reactions that the MTO/PEO have aggressively hidden from the Panel, but which Dr Bartlett says should be included in the rotational equilibrium analysis, have been calculated using CSiBridge software (Table 2c, Page 56 of 242 of my Final Summation: 74.5 kNm + 61.14kNm = 135.64 kNm, attached). They have also been calculated by hand as 134.2 kNm on Page 13 of 242 of the said Final Summation). Applying the Torsional Reaction of 135.64 kNm to the equilibrium analysis of the load test results for girders’ share of the Truck Live Load in Exhibit 31, it can be seen that the Torsional Reactions don’t make a dent on the equilibrium imbalance, which stands at 33.1%. Note that Exhibit 31 is MTO’s Load Test result (as opposed to structural analysis results).
- Now, the Torsional Reactions are here also applied to the rotational equilibrium analysis of MTO’s theoretical results (i.e., structural analysis results) for the Sturgeon River Bridge (solid line in Exhibit 31). This is shown in Table 3. The equilibrium imbalance is 35.6%.
- Now, you could obtain wrong results from a theoretical analysis of the wrong model as happened with MTO’s structural analysis of the Sturgeon River Bridge (MTO’s theoretical results). But you could not obtain from a load test wrong results that neatly satisfy vertical equilibrium while failing to satisfy rotational equilibrium. It becomes apparent that the said load test results could not possibly have been obtained independently of the theoretical results reported by the MTO. Therefore, the so-called load test results could only have been fraudulently derived from the theoretical results.
- Based on the foregone, my finding is that the purported load test results are NOT authentic, are NOT genuine, leading to the conclusion that the load test results are counterfeit. Why? Because if the results were genuine, they would not so neatly satisfy vertical equilibrium while failing spectacularly on rotational equilibrium. The Torsional Reactions have now been included (in my Final Summation and the preceding paragraphs) as Dr Bartlett required, and still MTO’s results fail to satisfy rotational equilibrium by 33.1% and 35.6% for “measured” and theory, respectively.
- Therefore, I humbly request that the purported load test results be disregarded by the Panel, thrown out, and given no consideration in this matter.
- Further, on the grounds that Dr Bartlett has not shared with the Panel, the Defendant, or the Ontario public even the slightest detail or exhibit of the results he said he obtained, I also respectfully request that the Panel attaches zero weight to that portion of Dr Bartlett’s testimony in which he stated that he undertook structural analysis that produced results similar to MTO’s results.
- NOTE: The Panel should please carefully note that PEO has gone to great lengths to withhold results of the structural analysis purported to have been undertaken by Dr Michael Bartlett (PEO’s chief Technical Witness) as well as the detailed results of both the theoretical analysis and load test (i.e. “measured”) of the Sturgeon River Bridge by the MTO, the latter two endeavours paid for by the tax payers of the Ontario Province.
Sincerely,
Dr Anthony Ikpong, P.Eng.
1st July 2023. Source: Dr Anthony Ikpong’s memoir, The Big Engineering Fight.