Source: http://blog.myleakycondo.com/index.php?op=Default&postCategoryId=984&blogId=1060
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:41:51+00:00

Document:
The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1725 v. Pacific Place Holdings Ltd. et al.
Services D%u2019Essais Intertek An Ltee.
 The Plaintiff applies for an Order that Star Masonry Ltd. (%u201CStar%u201D) be added as a Defendant to this Action and that the Plaintiff be granted leave to amend the Fifth Amended Writ of Summons and Third Further Amended Statement of Claim in order to allege that Star supplied and installed the masonry work for the condominium property which is the subject matter of this Action (%u201CCondominium%u201D), that Star owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, that Star breached that duty of care, and that the breaches of Star caused or contributed to the %u201CConstruction Deficiencies%u201D which are set out in paragraph 29 of the Statement of Claim. In the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim, the following %u201CParticulars%u201D of the Construction Deficiencies%u201D at the Condominium are said to include the following regarding the %u201CMASONRY%u201D: %u201Cinstallation of brick window sills without a slope; poor finishing at the interface between the windows and the surrounding brick walls; failure to properly install the waterproof membrane behind the porous concrete block, stone and brick façade; lack of mortared joints at the concrete block; failure to install drip groove in masonry above windows, resulting in rusting of lintels%u201D.
 The amendments to the Statement of Claim do not include amendments relating to the alleged construction deficiencies relating to the masonry. It is only stated in the amendments sought that: %u201CStar%u2019s breaches of duty caused or contributed to the Construction Deficiencies set out %u2026.%u201D so that Star and all of the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the loss and damage suffered by the Plaintiffs.
 The construction of the Condominium occurred between 1993 and 1995. The Defendant, Governor%u2019s Tower Ltd. (%u201CGovernor%u2019s%u201D) was the general partner of a partnership with Governor%u2019s Tower Ltd. Partnership (%u201CLimited Partnership%u201D). The Limited Partnership and Upper Nice Properties Ltd. were the developers of the Condominium (%u201CDevelopers%u201D). The Defendant, Centreville Construction Ltd. was retained by the Developers as the builder and construction manager for the construction of the Condominium.
 On May 12, 1993, Star entered into an agreement with Governor%u2019s for the installation of brick masonry work at the Condominium.
A maintenance program for Governors should have two aspects.
1. Firstly, an immediate effort to address the numerous relatively small defects identified in the Observations is essential. This effort would have to, by necessity, consist of additional application of caulking. Much of the previous remedial caulking would have to be removed and replaced with proper materials and workmanship.
This would significantly reduce the amount of water ingress and slow the internal deterioration and corrosion processes that are expected to be occurring.
2. Secondly, it is necessary to prepare a long term plan for future maintenance.
A face seal system based on caulking means, by definition, that periodic extensive maintenance in terms of replacement of caulking will be required. Good caulking can be expected to last approximately 10 years.
However, it is anticipated that the long term maintenance program will also involve some rebuilding of the present water management system. The degree to which is required, and the methods for doing such rebuilding have yet to be determined.
A management plan should be formulated after further research and fact finding of the extent of the problem.
Immediate Implementation Stop further water from entering the wall.
Conduct further intense investigation of the as built assembly of the window wall, enclosed balconies and vent grilles. Locate and review all window drawings, shop drawing and available notes from the period of construction.
Mid Term Implementation Plan and review remedial strategies. Construct a test area(s) of possible strategies.
Long Term Implementation Undertake the remedial work on a priority basis. Undertake the scheduled maintenance of the areas that do not require major work.
 In 1998, Levelton had observed efflorescence and other possible problems with respect to the brick wall at the Condominium. While the brick wall was identified as a potential source of water penetration, the primary focus of the investigation and the later remediation was the window walls and the %u201CExterior Insulation Finish System%u201D (%u201CEIFS%u201D).
 In its April 30, 1998 %u201CBuilding Envelope Investigation Report%u201D, Levelton refers to several possible problems with respect to the brick walls: (a) some mortar was cracking, which would only be a problem if the waterproof membrane behind and below the cracked areas did not redirect the water back to the outside of the wall; (b) split face blocks allowed for some capillary action water ingress, causing darkening and moss growth; (c) supporting metal shelf angles for the brick and block were getting wet, causing rust and staining; (d) the brick window sills were installed very flat and could possibly contribute to the slow migration of water into the wall cavity; (e) efflorescence on the brick, block and mortar, indicating the possible presence of water; and (f) the finishing where the brick met the windows was poor.
 In 1998, Levelton was authorized to conduct a more detailed investigation into the nature of the leaks. Findings of this detailed investigation were contained in a November 15, 1999 Report. The investigation concluded that deficiencies in the caulking joints in the EIFS panels were a secondary cause of leakage due to the large volume of water ingress observed during testing. Levelton concluded that that there was %u201Ca more significant problem elsewhere in the assembly%u201D.
 From 2001 to 2003, the Plaintiff performed a mixture of repair and maintenance work on the buildings constituting the Condominium, consisted mostly of replacing caulking at EIFS panel joints and installing membrane at the vent duct penetrations through the window wall. Despite the maintenance and repair work performed, leaks into some units persisted.
 In September 2004, Mr. Busque of Levelton reviewed some repairs that were being done on one of the units at the Condominium and observed extensive deterioration of the building envelope. In January, 2005, Mr. Busque visited a different unit at the Condominium and observed further evidence of water ingress through the windows. At that time, Mr. Busque concluded that the water ingress might be indicative of problems with the brick walls. On January 18, 2005, Mr. Busque reported to the Plaintiffs that there were potential serious problems with the brick walls and recommended that Levelton conduct test openings in the brick walls.
Mortar in the brick cavity blocked drainage of water that may have penetrated the though the joints in the brick to the cavity. A well-vented and properly drained cavity is essential to the good performance of brick veneer walls. This cavity was blocked by mortar. This is an error in the construction of the brickwall and does not meet the requirements of the Code or of the Architect%u2019s design.
 On September 14, 2005, the contract between Star and Centreville was located by the Plaintiffs during a document review conducted by counsel. This application was brought on November 18, 2005 as a result of the documents discovered in the September, 2005 document review. For various reasons, this application has not come on for earlier hearing.
 Star concedes that there is the necessary connection and, even if that concession had not been made, I would have found that the work undertaken by Star is necessarily connected with the Plaintiff and the work undertaken on behalf of the Plaintiff at the Condominium which is the subject matter of this Action.
 It is clear that the question of the alleged negligence of Star undertaking the masonry work is closely connected with the subject matter of this Action and the relief claimed. As it is only necessary to establish a possible cause of action or that there may exist a question or issue between the Plaintiff and Star, I find that the Plaintiff has met the low threshold of taking the matter above a frivolous claim: Strata Plan LMS 1212 v. Coquitlam (City) (2004), 31 B.C.L.R. (4th) 356 (B.C.S.C.). Accordingly, the question is whether it would be just and convenient to add Star.
HAS A LIMITATION PERIOD EXPIRED?
 In considering whether it is just and convenient that Star be added as a Defendant, all relevant factors are to be considered and no one single factor is necessarily determinative. The lapse of a limitation period for bringing an action is not necessarily a bar to adding a defendant: Teal Cedar Products Ltd. (1997) Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al. (1996), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 41; Cementation Co. (Canada) Ltd. v. America Home Insurance Co. (1989), 37 B.C.L.R. (2d) 172 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 8; Yablonski v. Cranbrook (City),  B.C.J. (Q.L.) No. 3214 (B.C.S.C.) at paras. 21-2; and Sun v. Sun,  B.C.J. (Q.L.) No. 1813 (B.C.S.C.) at para. 10.
 The applicable limitation period for construction deficiency actions is six years: Workers%u2019 Compensation Board of British Columbia v. Genstar Corporation (1988), 24 B.C.L.R. (2d) 157 (B.C.C.A.). The time begins to run when a plaintiff ought to have reasonably known of the facts and taken advice on those facts so as to conclude that an action would have a reasonable chance of success: Strata Plan No. VR 1720 v. Bart Developments Ltd. (1998), 53 B.C.L.R. (3d) 304 (B.C.S.C.), aff%u2019d (1999) 49 C.L.R. (2d) 161 (B.C.C.A.). In Bart, the Court held that, once a report from a consultant regarding an assessment of deficiencies in the construction had been received, a reasonable person such as strata owners would have concluded a good cause of action lay against the developers, consultants, architects and various trades as identified in the report.
In my view, the plaintiff followed a reasonable course of action throughout 1988 and 1989 until the receipt of the CSA report. They were seeking practical solutions to ever mounting problems, which, with the advantage of hindsight now appear to be symptoms and signs of large underlying deficiencies, but at the time were being dealt with by the developer and EPM/s own repairers.
 The Plaintiff here ought to have reasonably known of the facts and taken advice from those facts from its solicitors so as to conclude that an action would have a reasonable chance of success against Star after receiving the Levelton Report on June 20, 2005. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there has been no expiry of the six-year limitation period. I am satisfied that the limitation period did not begin to run until May or June, 2005. I find that it is just and convenient that Star be joined as a Defendant as that is more convenient to all of the parties than a new action naming Star as a Defendant and then a later motion to consolidate this Action and that action for all purposes.
 On the assumption that I am incorrect in coming to the conclusion that there was a postponement of the running of the limitation period so that it has not expired, the question is whether I should exercise my discretion after the expiry of the limitation period and, in this regard, consider the extent of the delay, the reasons for the delay, any explanation put forward, the degree of prejudice caused by the delay, and the extent of connection between the existing claims and the new cause of action: Letvad v. Finley (2000), 82 B.C.L.R. (3d) 296 (B.C.C.A.).
 In considering the issue of prejudice, it is necessary to undertake a review of the balance of prejudice. It will clearly be a significant prejudice to the Plaintiff if Star is not added as a Defendant. The Plaintiff will suffer an irreplaceable loss of a cause in circumstances where contributory negligence has been advanced as a defence as is the case here.
 Star will not suffer any prejudice if it is added as a Defendant other than the possible loss of a limitation defence. In the circumstances, the loss of a cause of action far outweighs such a prejudice: Takenaka v. Stanley (2000), 91 B.C.L.R. (3d) 179 (B.C.S.C.) at para. 41; and Yablonski, supra, at paras. 39-42.
 I find that there was no delay in bringing the application to join Star once it was determined that deficiencies in the brick masonry wall caused or partially caused water ingress and damage to the Condominium. Any delay was reasonable and excusable given the complexity of the action, the sheer volume of documents to be reviewed, and the evolving nature of the understanding of the Plaintiff of the causes and extent of the deficiencies in the Condominium.
 Star is in no different position than any other defendant who has to defend against the allegations of construction deficiencies in the masonry work performed. The Trial is not scheduled to commence until January, 2008 so Star will have ample opportunity to obtain evidence including expert evidence to defend these claims.
 A director and officer of Star states that there are no documents available at the offices of Star relating to the role of Star in the construction of the Condominium. In this regard, he indicates that it was the policy of Star to destroy documents that are more than seven years old and that the documents relating to their role in the construction of the Condominium were destroyed some time in 2003 in accordance with that policy. In the absence of these documents, it is said that it would be almost impossible to determine who was employed by Star at the time and, more particularly, which of its employees worked on the Condominium. He also states that Star engages subcontractors and that the absence of the documents will likely make it impossible to determine which subcontractors were engaged by Star in respect of the Condominium and the scope of their contractual obligations to Star. While the foreman at the project has been determined and while the foreman would have been responsible for many of the dealings with the owners, architects and others involved in a supervisory capacity and able to make changes in the scope of the work to be undertaken by Star and the manner in which the work was to be performed, that foreman is no longer available to Star as he died in either 2003 or 2004. Star states that none of the current employees of Star were employed by it during the period when the Condominium was constructed. As well, the liability insurer of Star added a %u201Cwater ingress exclusion%u201D to its coverage as of July 31, 2003 and it is the understanding of Star that, because a claim was not reported before this exclusion clause came into effect, there may be no insurance coverage for Star in respect of the allegations made in the Statement of Claim as the insurer has reserved its right to deny coverage.
 In response to the claim by Star that documents relating to their role in the construction of the Condominium have been lost or destroyed since 2003, there are tens of thousands of pages of documents produced by existing Defendants and the Plaintiff and these documents are available for the review of Star. There should be little difficulty in identifying the relevant documents and witnesses to be produced on behalf of Star given the relationship with existing defendants and the documents available: The Owners Strata Plan VR 2402 v. R. 118 Developments Inc. et al (2004), 35 C.L.R. (3d) 20 (B.C.S.C.) at para. 38.
 I find that the ability of Star to investigate the circumstances relating to the claim has not been hampered. I also find that the ability to investigate the circumstances or defend the claim would not have been any better one day before the expiry of the limitation period that may have expired as early as 2004 than it is presently: Endale v. Peters (1997), 47 C.C.L.I. (2d) 307 (B.C.S.C.) at para. 16; Sun, supra, at para. 26; Takenaka, supra, at paras. 18-20; and Bel Mar Developments Inc. v. North Shore Credit Union,  B.C.J. (Q.L.) No. 512 (B.C.S.C.).
 While the foreman on the job for Star is no longer available, it is undoubtedly the case that any change orders provided by the architect or Centreville on behalf of the Plaintiffs will be available as part of the many documents which will be in evidence and which will be available for Star. Accordingly, it appears that the untimely death of the foreman will not prejudice Star particularly. As well, even if the limitation period ran from 1998 when the first Levelton report was made available to the Plaintiff so that the limitation period would have only expired in 2004, the foreman on the job would still not have been available for Star.
I do not accept that because the Statement of Claim alleges defects in construction that ought to have been knowable to the defendants, that the plaintiff themselves must have had them within their means of knowledge from the beginning. Certainly the plaintiff could have ripped the building apart at the time the first leak was discovered, but that would not be reasonable.
In my view, the plaintiff followed a reasonable course of action throughout 1988 and 1989 until the receipt of the CSA report. They were seeking practical solutions to ever mounting problems, which, with the advantage of hindsight now appear to be symptoms and signs of large underlying deficiencies, but at the time were being dealt with by the developer and EPM's own repairers. (at paras. 30-1).
 On the assumption that no limitation period has expired, I am satisfied that it is just and convenient that Star Masonry Ltd. be added as a Defendant in this Action. The Plaintiff is at liberty to amend the Fifth Amended Writ of Summons and the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim. On the assumption that a limitation period has expired, I am still of the view that it would be just and convenient that Star be added as a Defendant to this Action and that the Plaintiff be granted leave to amend the Fifth Amended Writ of Summons and the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim.
 The costs of this application will be within the discretion of the learned Trial Judge.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.