Kim is a professional engineer in Ontario licensed pursuant to the Professional Engineers Act. Kim has developed knowledge in municipal water systems. Between 2019 and 2020, Kim exchanged communications with Professional Engineers Ontario, the City of Ottawa ("the City") and other professional engineers regarding her concern that the analyses relating to the design of water system in city of Ottawa were faulty. She sent an email to the City questioning the analysis performed by the water system design consultants retained by the City. In its response, the City described the mechanisms in place to ensure water safety in Canada but invited Kim to be more specific about her concerns and to identify any specific structures where her concerns applied. In her subsequent replies, Kim reiterated her view that water system design consultants hired by City had made errors in the design and had failed to follow the standards. Kim repeatedly offered to provide her engineering services to City to rectify the water system problems she alleged existed and in the place of other professional engineers who had a contractual relationship with City, even going so far as to suggest that City "back-charge" these engineers once it paid her for implementing her "solution." Kim then sent a strong worded letter to City and accused the City of incompetence, even after she had been told by City and other engineers she contacted that her concerns had been investigated, considered unfounded and dismissed, and that the matter was closed.

Which professional misconduct occurred in the Kim case and provide the legal justification (section of the law as well as how the criteria set by the law applies in this circumstances)?