Geotechnical News December 2010
13
CGS News
A.G. Stermac Awards
• Robert P. Chapuis, (Ecole Polytech-
nique)
• Catherine Mulligan, (Concordia
University)
• Siva Sivathayalan, (Carleton Uni-
versity)
• Sai K. Vanapalli, (University of Ot-
tawa)
CGS R.M. Hardy Keynote Ad-
dress:
James M. Oswell, Naviq
Consulting Inc.
CGS Keynote Address:
Not sched-
uled for the 2010 CGS Calgary
Conference.
MacKay Lecture:
Steven V. Kokelj,
Science Lead, Indian and Northern
Affairs Canada, Yellowknife
Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium:
Corey R. Froese, Manager, Alberta
Geological Survey, Energy Conser-
vation Board
Cross Canada Lecture Tours:
Don
Hayley, (Spring 2010), Sarah
Springman, (Fall 2010)
Awards from Engineering
Institute of Canada (EIC)
La Médaille Julian C. Smith Medal:
Dennis Becker, Golder Associates
in Calgary
La Médaille CPR Engineering Med-
al:
Robert P. Chapuis, Professor at
École Polytechnique de Montréal
Fellowship of the Institute (FEIC):
Donald Scott, Emeritus Professor,
University of Alberta
Call for Nominations –
The Canadian Geotechnical
Colloquium, 2012
The
Canadian
Geotechnical
Colloquium is a commissioned work
financially supported by the Canadian
Foundation for Geotechnique (CFG).
It is awarded annually to a member of
the Canadian Geotechnical community.
The purpose of the Colloquium is to
provide information of a particular
interest to Canadian geotechnique and
to provide encouragement to a younger
member of the Society in pursuing
studies in the Colloquium’s preparation.
The Colloquium is presented at the
CGS-SCG Annual Conference and
must be suitable for publication in the
Canadian Geotechnical Journal. It must
be prepared in the format established
by the Journal; however, the decision to
publish in the Journal is exclusively the
responsibility of the Journal Editor. The
choiceof the individual and topic ismade
by the Society’s Selection Committee
of the Geotechnical Research Board
based on the nominations received.
The successful candidate receives an
honorarium of $5,000 and a framed
certificate.
Each nomination letter must pro-
vide an introduction to the candidate
and their main accomplishments. It
must be accompanied by an abstract
of about 2000 words of the proposed
lecture, emphasizing the importance
of the topic to the Canadian geotech-
nical community, a brief review of the
state-of-the-art on that problem, an
outline of the significance of the can-
didate’s contribution, and a curriculum
vitae listing the nominee’s practical ex-
perience relevant to the topic and the
nominee’s publication record. Infor-
mation on the nomination criteria can
be obtained starting on page 36 of the
“Awards and Honours Manual 2010”
at
manuals/.
Nominations should be submitted
prior to January 31, 2011 to Dieter
F.E. Stolle, P.Eng., Civil Engineer-
ing Dept., McMaster University, 1280
Main Street W., Hamilton ON L8S
4L7,
or care of the
CGS Secretariat.
The Robert N. Farvolden Award
for Hydrogeology
Every year, in conjunction with
the Canadian National Chapter of
the International Association of
Hydrogeologists (CNC/IAH), the
Canadian
Geotechnical
Society
presents the Robert N. Farvolden
Award to an individual or group to
recognize excellence in hydrogeology
in one or more of the following areas:
research and publication, professional
practice and education, and service to
the professional community or public,
either nationally or internationally.
Recent winners have been Garth
van der Kamp (2005), Emil Frind
(2007), Frank Patton (2008), the late
Bank and its affiliates were original ad-
dressees thereof; provided, however,
that U. S. Bank and its affiliates shall be
deemed not to be subject to or bound by
any of the obligations of any original
addressee or owner of the Property in
any agreement related to the Report....”
In essence, this wording would require
environmental professionals to commit
risk management suicide. It gives the
Bank all the benefits of being able to
rely on the report (plus a potential es-
cape from the constraints of the eco-
nomic loss doctrine) with absolutely
none of the liabilities or responsibilities
that comprised the business context
through which the report was devel-
oped. In a best-practices scenario – the
type of scenario to which, I presume,
the Bank subscribes – the client selects
a particularly qualified consultant, dis-
cusses its needs with the consultant, and
then works with the consultant to mutu-
ally establish a scope of service for the
engagement. The consultant and client
then discuss the consideration the con-
sultant needs to fulfill the scope of ser-
vice and manage the risk associated
with potentially lifelong responsibility
for t
incl
agement provisions of the contract,
such as limitation of liability.
By requiring a consultant to prepare
and sign its form letter, the Bank is stat-
ing, in essence, “We want to be able to
rely
ely (and even
if we
ncing, by the
way) without having to accept any of
your contractual safeguards, without
having to compensate you for any of
your customary, anticipated risks, and
without having to compensate you for
your new, significantly expanded risks,
especially the new risk that arises be-
cause you designed your service for
some other party, and with no knowl-
edge of the Bank’s needs and prefer-
ences, and no knowledge of the service
scope the Bank believes is best-suited to
address those needs and preferences.”
To a very real extent, Mr. Grundhofer,
this is like requiring a physician to be li-
able for your health after you decide to
follow the course of treatment the phy-
sician prescribed for your friend whose
illness (in your opinion) was kind of
like your own.
do not print key lines
GSLOPE ad
b & w
pick up from page 4, June 2005
do
A
b
pi
po
2= <=B >@7<B 93G :7<3A
#7B@3 2
-
>719 C> 4@=; )3>B3;03@
;/93 AC@3 B6/B B3:3>6=<3 >@347F 6/A 033< 16/<532 B=
