| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
editor@bccondos.ca
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:04 am Post subject: My windows leak. |
 |
|
My windows leak. There is condensation and freezing and wet stains on the walls.
Start with a 1984 study referred to in Mark Lawton’s article, Reacting to Durability Problems… called Rain Leakage of Residential Windows in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, by Max Baker and Ted Blackall, NRC, BPN 42. Windows have been a problem here for some time, it seems. It's illuminating from a building standards perspective to read Mark Lawton's article from a 1999 conference, Reacting to Durability... here, where he posed the question:
| Quote: | | Why can't we get windows that truly work to keep the water out of the wall? Considering the cost measures we use to prepare window openings, it would seem that we could afford a better window. (emphasis added) |
That was written five years ago but here we are still having to litigate over windows that don't perform their primary function of keeping out the elements.
Now go to Clare et al v. I.J. Manufacturing Ltd. beginning at para. 82.
In this case, there was a conflict between the findings of two expert witnesses and their testing methods to determine whether the CSA window standard, an I factor of 40, was met. Here, it was, but go also to paras. 155, 172 and 176, where the court noted that no claims were made for fire danger or health hazards, nor were the windows themselves found to be dangerous, although even if they were, damages would have been limited to the reasonable cost of putting the building into a non-dangerous state.
...Danger? Health hazards? Huh?
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=88#88 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
editor2
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2003 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our e-mail to plaintiff's counsel:
| Quote: | From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:00 AM
To: 'rmcdiarmid@morellichertkow.com'
Cc: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Subject: Leaky Windows and Clare
We despaired when we read the Clare windows decision last week and included it in our Condo Law FAQs forum. Mark Lawton, a particularly humble engineer from Morrison Hershfield, wrote in 1998 about an NRC study on failed windows written as far back as ’84. We thought you might be interested. We also run a Condo Life Cycles forum, where we encourage some fairly pointed discussion on standards, which may interest you. Our view is that if leaky windows are meeting the CSA standard, the standard is too low. Was there any cross-ex on the testing protocol? Apparently, these protocols are the stuff of jokes among industry scientists. Will there be an appeal?
Editor@bccondos.ca |
The reply:
Counsel's reply:
| Quote: | From: Rob McDiarmid [SMTP:rmcdiarmid@morellichertkow.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:37 PM
To: editor
Subject: Leaky Windows and Clare
There was lots of cross examination. The windows tested by the manufacturer may well have differed from those installed in my clients' homes. The CSA standard does not appear to require manufacturers to manufacture in exact conformance with the sample of window tested.
There is no appeal. |
A final heads-up:
| Quote: | From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:11 PM
To: 'Rob McDiarmid'
Subject: RE: Leaky Windows and Clare
Wow. Yes, B.C.’s approach to CSA standards generally gives us a lot to chew on. Interesting. Thanks.
Ed. |
| Quote: | | Note: Five years and tens of thousands of leaky condo refugees later, we're STILL wondering WHY CSA 'Standards' are merely guidelines and NOT YET a matter of legal requirement! And even if they are mere guidelines, do we think it's OK to deviate from them THIS MUCH? In our view, these now well-documented, predictable failures are the result of a federal-provincial policy decision to sacrifice consumers in favor of what experts now call B.C.'s new Failed Housing Economy, lining the pockets of the real estate/construction industry while warming the planet, wastefully extracting non-renewable natural resources to create poisonous new building materials. Anything but green. Go, Gord and his Filthy Few! |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=147#147 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor2
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Piercing the corporate veil
Noel Developments v. Metro-Can Construction, BCSC, 1999, is another leaky windows case, this time concerning the question of whether to allow the plaintiff to pierce the corporate veil. Ultimately, Shaw, J. decided the issue was too complex to be heard at a summary trial, but there is a very interesting review of contract and negligence law in this application.
| Quote: | [10] The Owners' action is for damages to repair deficiencies
in the two towers. The main allegation is that the window-
walls in the towers leak water. In that action, Noel has taken
third party proceedings against Metro-Can and Metro-Can (HS)
alleging that the claimed deficiencies were their fault.
[11] In these three actions, numerous other parties have been
joined, including various contractors and sub-contractors,
architects, engineers and sureties. As well, there are many
other related actions by parties claiming that they have not
yet been paid for their services and/or materials. ...
THE "ALTER-EGO" ISSUE
[17] The construction contract is, on its face, between Noel
and Metro-Can (HS). The principal of Noel, Mr. John Laxton,
expressly did not wish to contract with the parent Metro-Can
because Metro-Can had a certain union affiliation which Mr.
Laxton wished to avoid. The use of the subsidiary was also
convenient to the principal of Metro-Can, Mr. Don Voth, as he
wished to protect the parent company from liability. It was
his practice to have separate subsidiary companies incorporated
for separate projects, such as the Harbourside Park project.
[18] Noel now wishes to pierce the corporate veil of Metro-Can
(HS) to make Metro-Can a contracting party. The reason is
patent: Noel considers that it is the parent company that has
financial substance, not the subsidiary.
[19] Noel relies upon evidence that demonstrates that in
practically every conceivable way, the subsidiary was run by
the parent. The vehicle for this was a management contract
between the parent and the subsidiary. The contract reads:
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
METRO-CAN CONSTRUCTION LTD. ("MC")
AND METRO-CAN CONSTRUCTION (HS) LTD. ("MCHS")...
[53] Having ruled earlier that the corporate veil of Metro-Can
(HS) could not be lifted in order to make Metro-Can a party to
the construction contract, I should observe that this ruling
bars the Owners' claim to enforce warranty GC24 of the
construction contract directly against Metro-Can. This,
however, does not preclude the Owners making a claim in tort
against Metro-Can pursuant to the Winnipeg Condominium case,
supra. It will be remembered that LaForest J. said:
... that contractors (as well as subcontractors,
architects and engineers) who take part in the design and
construction of a building will owe a duty in tort to
subsequent purchasers of the building if it can be shown
that ...
[54] Under the management contract between Metro-Can and Metro-
Can (HS), quoted earlier in these reasons, the management of
the project was arguably sub-contracted to Metro-Can by Metro-
Can (HS). While I refrain from deciding whether Metro-Can
became a "sub-contractor" of Metro-Can (HS) such as to bring
Metro-Can within the scope of those who owe a duty of care to
the Owners, I cannot at this point exclude that possibility.
[55] It follows that I should not, at this time, wholly dismiss
the Owners' claims against either Metro-Can or Metro-Can (HS).
Rather, I should and do dismiss this aspect of the motion by
Metro-Can and Metro-Can (HS). The points raised in the motion
are left open to be raised at the trial. ... |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=174#174 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
388 Drake St., Vancouver West End:
Is it just windows or does the whole thing leak?
| Quote: | From: Maboub Goo
To: <editor>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 9:34 AM
Subject: Vancouver condo question
Dear editor -
Love your website, and hope you can help us. We are in the process of trying to buy an apartment in Vancouver and are frustrated trying to uncover the real status of the building we might be buying in. We know the strata of the building (388 Drake) is suing the developer and are set to go to mediation this spring. What we can't determine from the engineering reports or the strata minutes is whether this is a leaky condo suit or, as our agent keeps telling us, just a problem of leaky windows.
We're not experts, but is there a difference? Are there any resources you can recommend that help us determine how much of a risk we would be taking on by buying in to this building?
We can't thank you enough for any advice you can offer.
Cheers,
First-time home buyers in Vancouver |
Our reply:
| Quote: | From: "editor" <editor>
To: Maboub Goo
Cc: <editor>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Vancouver condo question
Hello Condo Virgins (an enviable status, believe me),
Yes, despite similar wet effects, there is a difference between a full building envelope repair and the replacement of leaky windows. For more on leaky windows, see above posts.
We're concerned that the problems with your building are not clear from the engineering report and/or the strata council minutes. Red flag, too, against relying on a realtor's assessment of construction defects or even of strata council minutes generally. Realtors aren't allowed to lie but their expertise is limited. Suggest contacting signatories to the engineering report for particulars. Prepare hypothetical questions in writing based on the report, then hit the phone with pen and paper, ready to take notes. Keep calling until your questions have been answered satisfactorily. If any of the answers is "we don't know," ask about options to proceed and the estimated cost of each.
Ask, too, if there is a case study available online to illustrate a proposed solution, such as
CMHC's Case Study 33 Rehabilitation of a window wall in a rainscreen system, Vancouver, B.C..
As you know, we advise buyers to consult legal counsel BEFORE making an offer. A condo lawyer familiar with construction defect/negligence litigation will be able to peruse the minutes and point to potential issues. Hint: A strata corporation heading for a lawsuit/mediation is probably not going to be a happy place for quite awhile. Hint 2: The mediation anticipated at your strata corporation may be between potential defendants contesting who should have the biggest percentage of fault in the litigation still to come.
Hope this helps. Be careful. There are no soft landing spots for unwary buyers in the 'hot' condo market.
Ed. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=776#776
Last edited by editor on Thu May 08, 2008 10:27 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
COUNTRY LIFE
Magazine Subscription
Finding An Architect in Yorkshire
By Marcus Binney
Feb. 22/07
| Quote: | Digby Harris (info@francisjohnson.fsnet.co.uk) is part of the partnership which continues the legendary Yorkshire practice of Francis Johnson & Partners, the most accomplished country-house architect of his generation. The hallmark of a Digby Harris building is the wonderful choice and handling of building mateirals, whether brick or stone. Mr. Harris says: 'Francis used to lament that he never built a stone house. By good fortune, I am now on my third.'
Smooth ashlar facing stone is relatively cheap compared to what it used to be, thanks to modern cutting techniques. One client found a sandstone quarry near Richmond producing a lovely golden stone. Stone slates are coming from Northumberland. 'They're the only quarry producing riven slates of the northern variety, brownish rather than the black as you get in the West Riding.'
The key to his success is the choice of suppliers. For bricks, he often goes to the York Handmade Brick Company, which produces colors, sizes and shapes to order. ...
He laughs when I ask him about sash windows. 'I am now on the last single-glazed house we shall be able to build. The problem with double glazing is that it's never guaranteed for more than 10 years, and that's about the time when seals start to go. The likelihood is that they will have to be replaced, and that probably outweighs the loss of heat from single glazing in carbon-footprint terms.'
Aesthetically, he says, the best way to get the right proportions is to mirror the chunky glazing bars of the early 18th century. If you want thin astragals of the late Georgian kind, you have to form a lattice over a large sheet of glass. Visually, this works well, but if the double-glazing seal goes, it will be difficult to replace the glass without damaging the frame. (-- p. 110) |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1320#1320 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
