Leaky Condo Syndrome

[fluffy]

It's really too bad that the Lakeview Terraces project has been plagued by problems since the get-go, the concept was bang on in my opinion, higher-end condos on the slope overlooking the lake configured so that everyone gets a view. The initial timing of the construction was unfortunate, coming near the end of a significant price rally in residential prices that saw a glut of new projects coming on the market, along with a marked spike in construction materials and labour prices that in turn forced the developers to go back to the owners of pre-sold units for more money just to finish the building. Now continuing problems of water penetration into the building envelope has ended up in court, with owners seeking financial retribution for what could apparently be a costly series of repairs. A litany of defendants naming virtually everyone involved in the design, financing and construction of the project seeks to go after anyone who might have money in their pockets.

I'm unsure of exactly where the problem sits, the article in the Herald Extra last week didn't go into much detail except to say that the basic design was poorly considered in that sufficient protection from the elements was not provided. The term "Leaky Condo" originated in Vancouver some years back where the popularity of "desert" designs gained popularity and resulted in numerous instances of water penetration due mainly to the lack of overhangs on the roofs and low-slope roof-lines, allowing rain to run down walls and enter the building around doors and windows that would normally be protected from the direct onslaught of precipitation, as well as the problem of wet snow collecting on the roofs and decks.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, to see just how much liability still rests with the builders of a project completed some ten years in the past.

[lcpp64]

Hi fluffy

Has there been any update on this problem property?

[twobits]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, to see just how much liability still rests with the builders of a project completed some ten years in the past.

Does the builder or engineering firm that stamped the drawing even exist anymore? That is what it comes down to. IMO, this is so old that it is impossible to collect anything.

[fluffy]

There was quite a list of names on the court documents, from the designers and general contractors to the engineering firm and some individual contractors, even the city planning department if I remember correctly, but I haven't heard a peep in some time.

[twobits]

There was quite a list of names on the court documents, from the designers and general contractors to the engineering firm and some individual contractors, even the city planning department if I remember correctly, but I haven't heard a peep in some time.

Fluff, this is so old now we are unlikely to hear about any litigation. The opportunity is well past the best before date of building warrantee time frames. The only recourse I can see for the owners is proving fraud or gross negligence and I seriously doubt the strata owners have any appetite for the price of that legal bill on a crap shoot at best. Sad but probably true and also a good lesson for others thinking of investing in a building of non typical design for the area.

[dreamon]

This matter is still very much ongoing with resolution in site.
The court docket was updated as recently as this past Thursday which would mean something further has been filed.

[fluffy]

I have to wonder if a lawyer would even take this on if there wasn't a reasonable chance of success?

[twobits]

I have to wonder if a lawyer would even take this on if there wasn't a reasonable chance of success?

When they bill by the hour, they don't really care about the chances of success. If the Strata's lawyer was paid on contingency, I would be more hopeful of an owner success. I seriously doubt that is the case here.
Who knows? Maybe they will be able to prove gross negligence. Will be hard though. It would be the difference between the engineering designers believed it would be ok and the engineering designers KNEW it would not be ok and proceeded anyway.
It's the argument of "they should have known" has got to be made and that will be tough.

[dreamon]

Maybe they will be able to prove gross negligence. Will be hard though. It would be the difference between the engineering designers believed it would be ok and the engineering designers KNEW it would not be ok and proceeded anyway.
It's the argument of "they should have known" has got to be made and that will be tough.

I think that is the difference between negligence (doing a poor job) and fraud (knowing it was all wrong, covering up and doing it anyway). I am not suggesting any fraud took place here, just extreme negligence and possibly stupidity, not sure there is a tort law that covers stupid!

My understanding from some closely involved (owners), is that a settlement is very close with work slated to begin shortly.

[lcpp64]

Does the builder or engineering firm that stamped the drawing even exist anymore? That is what it comes down to. IMO, this is so old that it is impossible to collect anything.

Looks like the General Contractor, the Architect, & the Insurance Co (assuming for the project build) are all still in business.

So I think this will come down to is;
1) What are the issues
2) Who is at fault
3) Who is still in business
4) What insurance was in play for the companies involved
5) Then Settlement or Court

I could see the Strata settling with the insurance companies before their court date, which I just read is set for Sept of 2017. I wonder where the HPO is with all this as it would be unusual that this project was build in 2006 without a HPO required 3rd party warranty?

The City will attempt to distance their involvement and liabilities, but the law is always trickier than first glance. They may settle with the Strata before Sept, 2017 or "roll the dice". Delta lost their court case, appealed, then lost their appeal (see below).

Depending upon the dollar figure here (which I do not know), I like your approach of getting the lawyer involved on a % of winnings vs hourly - odd how things seem to happen quicker that way

[youhavegottobekidding]

I have to wonder if a lawyer would even take this on if there wasn't a reasonable chance of success?

Good one. Don't lawyers only care about BILLABLE HOURS???.....You realize the public has the same low opinion of lawyers as politicians...:)

[zzontar]

This causes way too many pregnancies! Oops.... read it wrong.