Riverwest (Delta): Leaky condo owners win; owners not responsible for leaks and rot

Citation: The Owners, Strata Plan NW 3341 et al v. Canlan Ice Sports Corp. et al

Date: 20010821

  2001 BCSC 1214



Registry: Vancouver













Counsel for the Defendants & Third Parties Van Maren Construction Co. Ltd. and Van Maren Construction (#8701) Ltd.

Lawrence W. Coulter

Acting in Person

J. Novacek & Associates Ltd.

Counsel for the Defendant,
The Corporation of Delta

Donald Howieson
And James G. Yardley

Counsel for the Defendants & Third Parties Elbe, Lock, Walls & Associates Inc.

Beth Allard

Counsel for the Plaintiffs, The Owners, Strata Plan NW 3341 et al

Darrell W. Roberts, Q.C.
and Barbara J. Curran

Date and Place of Hearing/Trial:

December 11th to
December 15th, 2000 and January
2nd to 19th, 2001


New Westminster, B.C.

[1] The plaintiff Strata Corporation claims damages for repairs to the three buildings comprising Riverwest Estates made necessary by wood rot in the exterior wall sheathing, studs and beams. The deterioration of the wood framing at Riverwest is similar to that found in many other contemporary buildings in the lower mainland. Many buildings have required extensive repairs of the wood frame members, replacement of the sheathing and exterior wall surfaces. The repairs are costly and Strata Corporations have difficulty functioning under the stress. The individual owners have ultimately had to carry most or all of the very substantial costs of these repairs.

[2] Riverwest is situated on the south arm of the Fraser River in the Municipality of Delta. In total there are eighty-five units. The buildings were constructed in 1990 and fully occupied by the fall of 1991. Two of the buildings are identical in design and the third is similar. The design incorporates terraced decks on the east and west ends of the buildings, balconies on the north and south sides, a flat roof, stucco walls and tall half-round windows on the top floor, extending above ceiling height and covered by peaked metal roofing. The buildings are wood frame construction and suites have exterior windows and doors opening onto the decks and balconies. The suites have gas fireplaces vented to the roof through frame chimney chases annexed to the exterior walls. The exterior walls extend above the roof to parapet tops. There are no roof overhangs.

[3] The project was owned and developed by the defendant Canlan Ice Sports Corp. The defendant, Van Maren Construction (#8701) Ltd. was the general contractor.

[4] This action lists the developer and the contractor, the structural engineer, and a building design company as defendants, but the case at trial involved only the Strata Corporation and the Municipality of Delta. The plaintiffs' action alleges negligent approval of the application for the building permit, negligent inspection of construction, and negligence in the final act of issuance of the occupancy permit.


[5] In 1989 the Riverwest project was presented to the Municipality for rezoning along with architectural drawings indicating the outward appearance of the buildings. At this stage the appearance of the buildings was quite different from what became the final design. Mr. Dumbleton, an architect, prepared these drawings. Council approved the proposal and the project went to the building permit stage. At this point the defendant, Elbe, Lock, Walls & Associates Inc. became involved, preparing the plans that accompanied the permit application. The final configuration of the buildings and some of the construction details were determined by these plans.

[6] The structural design of the buildings was presented in plans drawn by the defendant, J. Novacek & Associates Ltd., structural engineers.

[7] The plans prepared by the defendants, Elbe, Lock, Walls were not drawn by a professional architect. The legend affixed to the plans had Mr. Dumbleton's name block affixed to them, but he did not act in their preparation nor authorize his name to be used. The plans met with the approval of the Building Department and a permit was issued on February 26, 1990.

[8] During the course of construction, the Municipality conducted inspections at three of the five stages indicated in the bylaw. The two other inspections required by the building bylaw, to occur on completion of the foundation footings and after framing was complete, were noted on the municipal record as being the responsibility of the structural engineer who provided the structural design.

[9] The buildings were completed in succession. Owners began to take occupancy of suites in the first building in August 1990, and virtually all of the suites in the three buildings were occupied by the end of 1991. The occupancy permit for all three buildings was issued the 27th day of November 1991.

[10] Shortly after units were occupied owners began to complain about the construction of the decks and balconies. The developer had stipulated that the design of these features should include minimum slopes for the horizontal deck and balcony surfaces and the lowest threshold height achievable at the intersection with the patio doors. The plans approved for issuance of the building permit detailed a slope of 1:96, which indicates a fall of about one-eighth of an inch along each foot travelled toward the outside edge. The evidence given at this trial indicated this was less than the building code requirement of approximately one-quarter inch to the foot. As constructed, many surfaces apparently had no consistent slope at all, resulting in water pooling on these surfaces.

[11] Mr. Frank, an engineer consulted by the strata counsel to advise on deficiencies prior to expiry of the one-year warranty offered by the developer, inspected some of the deck repairs in October 1992. His report noted the inappropriate slope and his comment was that the efforts being made at that time to improve the slope were unlikely to produce favourable results. His recommendation was that the decks should be completely stripped and reconstructed.

[12] Despite Mr. Frank's comments improvements to the decks and balconies were attempted by building new deck surfaces over the old, increasing the slope back from the outside edge by using supporting cross strips of increasing thickness. This had the result of raising the deck below the patio doors and creating a seam between the waterproof vinyl surface of the deck and the stucco surface of the walls. Originally the vinyl membrane covering the decks and balconies was run up the adjoining walls for a distance with the stucco applied over top of the membrane. In the construction of the replacement deck surfaces, the vinyl was brought into contact with the stucco surface and a watertight joint attempted by using a sealant.

[13] The efforts to improve the decks and balconies continued for a number of years after substantial completion of the project and were a continuing concern of the owners and the Strata Corporation. These remedial efforts were undertaken by the developer and the construction company until further efforts were refused in January 1995. By this time some of the decks had been resurfaced twice.

[14] The attempts to improve the decks and balconies deserve mention in the history of this case because the original construction and remediation of these features contributed to what became the greater problem of moisture entering the walls. But also because balcony repairs eventually led to the discovery of the significant rot found in the structural framing.


[15] Starting during the first year of occupancy, the Strata Council also dealt with water leaks into the interior of many of the units. These leaks followed periods of rain and wind and were noticed above and below windows and patio doors and through ceilings of certain units. The worst leaks followed heavy rains and were usually seasonal occurrences. They were dealt with by application of sealants at likely points of entry into the exterior walls.

[16] Mr. Frank's January 1992 report dealt in part with deficiencies he noted in the application of flashings along the parapet tops, at intersections with roof membrane, and where flashings met stucco. He also noted that he could not observe the metal beads and drip moulds that were supposed to be incorporated in the fascia built into the top perimeter of the buildings, a defect that would allow moisture to enter into the wall. He commented that flashings would have to be re-detailed to achieve outward slope and needed to continue up behind the stucco. Further, that the flashings applied to the building, "require extensive and continued application of sealants in order to remain somewhat waterproof." He also noted that the complex was not protected by overhanging soffits and was located beside the Fraser River and subject to substantial wind effects on moisture and precipitation.

[17] Mr. Frank's comments were forwarded to the developer who assured that all details were pre-approved by "the architect", and that the flashings were inspected by the roofing contractor. Nothing more was done to attempt repairs beyond the application of sealant in response to leaks into the apartments.

[18] Discovery of rot in the framing began with events in 1996. On one occasion an owner brought to the Strata Council's attention a piece of trim at the base of an interior wall. The painted wood trim had rotted to the point that the moulding would give way to hand pressure, revealing the interior of the wall cavity. In July 1996 rot was found in a beam, part of the structure supporting the roof of one of the buildings, during a repair to a deck of a third floor suite. Removal of the deck revealed the beam rotted to the extent that pieces of the laminated beam could be pulled away by hand.

[19] The Strata Corporation commissioned a report from MHP Consultants, an engineering firm, to advise on the beam repair, followed by a further report dealing with the need to assess the extent of rot in the three building complex. In September 1996, the Strata Corporation took legal advice. Written notice of a potential claim was given to Delta on October 2nd, and this action was filled on October 16 1996.

[20] The MHP reports were prepared by Mr. Morstead, an engineer with experience in building envelope design. He surveyed the owners in relation to water leaks that had occurred in the past, examined the outside cladding, design features and flashings, and inspected the ongoing beam repair. He found that 41 of the 85 suites at Riverwest had experienced water leaking onto interior walls, window surfaces or ceiling finishes. Approximately one-quarter of the suites showed evidence of ongoing water leakage problems. The summary of his findings was as follows:

Wall, window and patio deck construction at Riverwest is similar to many timber-frame, stucco-clad condominium buildings in the Lower Mainland. Water entry problems at Riverwest and other buildings derive from a reliance on exterior surfaces, joints and junctions to remain watertight during the service-life of the buildings. This enclosure type is often referred to as "face-sealed". Leakage into exterior walls and patio decks occurs when even minor openings in exterior seals allow water in. In some instances, water entry has resulted in wood rot of timber structural elements.

Wind-driven rain is a particularly difficult source of moisture to control using face-sealed details and many architectural features of the buildings result in joints and junctions that are difficult to seal. Recurring water entry problems at some suites is an indication of the difficulty of obtaining serviceable face-sealed assemblies. Up-grading of walls, windows and decks is needed to obtain assemblies that do not rely on the integrity of exterior seals. This work would involve all three main enclosure components included in the recent investigation: 1) Patio deck waterproofing including adjacent windows and sliding doorways. 2) stucco and metal wall cladding including metal flashings particularly with East and South exposures, and 3) window and patio door installations.

[21] This report was followed by more extensive investigation of the buildings and moisture probing conducted by Mr. Frank, who was at this time employed by Morrison Hershfield, a further consulting firm hired by the Strata corporation. The testing confirmed water entry into the buildings and also recommended extensive rebuilding of the exterior walls and balconies.

[22] In early 1998 the Strata corporation hired RDH Building Engineering to provide advice, and to design and manage the repair program. The project was tendered and a bid selected. The buildings were stripped of stucco and sheathing, structural framing was replaced where required and the sheathing, building paper and exterior surface replaced. The replacement was primarily with stucco of similar composition to that originally applied, but applied onto wooden strips which allowed drainage and ventilation so that moisture that might penetrate into the wall behind the stucco would drain or dry, rather than being retained in the wall itself. Remediation also included addition of overhanging canopies over upper storey windows and doors and reconstruction of the decks. The total price paid was in the order of $3 million, or roughly $40,000 to $60,000 per unit.


[23] During the process of stripping the exterior, deficiencies in the structural design of the buildings were uncovered and repaired. The supporting joists below balconies and decks were not adequate to support these features over the distance spanned. Joists were not fixed into beams with adequate support and the deck structures were tied into chimney chases, which did not rest on foundation footings. These structural defects were improved as part of the overall project. The cost of these repairs was not isolated, but estimated to have increased the total cost by approximately $50,000 to $75,000.


[24] The law imposing liability for negligence requires that a defendant must owe the claimant a duty of care. Proof must then be given that the defendant failed to exercise a reasonable standard of care and that this failure was a material cause of the damage the plaintiff suffered.


[25] The duty of care of a government regulatory body to individuals among the public it serves is now well established by case law. In Anns v. London Borough of Merton, [1978] A.C. 728, a local government body was found liable to a private claimant for negligence in enforcing building standards. The two-step test established in Anns required, first an analysis of whether there was a sufficiently close or proximate relationship between the public body and the private claimant to be able to reasonably forecast that negligence by the regulatory body would cause damage to the claimant. The second consideration is whether there are any competing, often policy based, reasons why the public body should not be made liable.

[26] In Kamloops v. Nielsen [1984] 5 W.W. 1, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that the law expressed in Anns would extend liability in Canadian cases where economic loss resulted from the negligent acts of a regulatory body. In Kamloops, and traditionally, the argument advanced in favour of limiting liability was that government bodies would be subject to indeterminate and overwhelming exposure, a concern expressed in a U.S. authority, Ultramares v. Touche (1931) 255 N.Y. 170. At p.45 Wilson, J. rejected this limitation of liability:

I do not believe that to permit recovery in this case is to expose public authorities to the indeterminate liability referred to Ultramares. In order to obtain recovery for economic loss the statute has to create a private law duty to the plaintiff along side the public law duty. The plaintiff has to belong to the limited class of owners or occupiers of the property at the time the damage manifests itself. Loss caused as a result of policy decisions made by the public authority in the bona fide exercise of discretion will not be compensable. Loss caused in the implementation of policy decisions will not be compensable if the operational decision includes a policy element. Loss caused in the implementation of policy decisions, i.e., operational negligence will be compensable. Loss will also be compensable if the implementation involves policy considerations and the discretion exercised by the public authority is not exercised in good faith. Finally, and perhaps this merits some emphasis, economic loss will only be recoverable if as a matter of statutory interpretation it is a type of loss the statute intended to guard against.

It seems to me that recovery for economic loss on the foregoing basis accomplishes a number of worthy objectives. It avoids undue interference by the courts in the affairs of public authorities. It gives a remedy where the legislature has impliably sanctioned it and justice clearly requires it. It imposes enough of a burden on public authorities to act as a check on the arbitrary and negligent discharge of statutory duties. For these reasons I would permit recovery of the economic loss in this case.

[27] Kamloops was a case where the Municipality failed to take any effective action to require a property owner to replace an unstable retaining wall. The city inspector had discovered the defect and placed a stop work order on the site, but the city took no further action to resolve the problem. The city was found liable to a subsequent purchaser who bought the property without notice of the defect and suffered loss when the wall failed, removing support for the foundation of the home situate on the property. The failure founding negligence was therefore the failure to enforce compliance with building standards.

[28] In Rothfield v. Manolakos (1989) 63 D.L.R. (4TH) 449, another case involving a retaining wall, the Municipality was held liable for issuing a building permit without having received proper plans for the wall and for subsequently failing to make a proper inspection. The case illustrates that municipalities may be liable not only for negligent enforcement of the building bylaw, but for negligence in the approval and inspection process. La Forest, J. said at p. 455:

The inspection of plans and the supervision of construction increases the costs of a construction for everyone. But I think that most rate payers, were they to give the matter any thought, would justify the increased expense as an investment in peace of mind; faulty construction, after all, is a danger to life and limb and may result in future expense and liability.

[29] In each of these cases the duty to exercise proper care originated in the public law responsibility imposed by statute or adopted under permissive statutory authority by the local authority. In each case there was foreseeable loss to the plaintiff if the process of regulation was done badly or not undertaken at all.

[30] In assessing policy based reasons for avoidance of liability the court in Kamloops recognized that if the failure to act were based on a good faith employment of discretion in the allocation of resources, liability should not be imposed. The distinction was made between operational negligence and implementation of policy decisions. In any individual case, however, the difficulty often lies in properly labelling the failure in question. Was it an operational failure to implement a policy or a forgivable policy based economy of resources? The further, or perhaps initial, requirement of good faith in determining policy adds another level of analysis.

[31] In Just v. British Columbia [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228, Cory J. said the following at p. 1242:

The duty of care should apply to a public authority unless there is a valid basis for its exclusion. A true policy decision undertaken by a government agency constitutes such a valid basis for exclusion. What constitutes a policy decision may vary infinitely and may be made at different levels although usually at a high level.

The decisions in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council and City of Kamloops v. Nielsen, supra, indicate that a government agency in reaching a decision pertaining to inspection must act in a reasonable manner which constitutes a bona fide exercise of discretion. To do so they must specifically consider whether to inspect and if so, the system of inspection must be a reasonable one in all the circumstances.

[32] In a subsequent case, Brown v. British Cclumbia [1994]1 S.C.R. 420, Cory J. reiterated much of what was said in Just and added the following:

In distinguishing what is policy and what is operations, it may be helpful to review some of the relevant factors that should be considered in making that determination. These factors can be derived from the following decisions of this Court: Laurentide Motels Ltd. v. Beauport (City), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; Barratt v. District of North Vancouver, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 418; and Just, supra; and can be summarized as follows:

True policy decisions involve social, political and economic factors. In such decisions, the authority attempts to strike a balance between efficiency and thrift, in the context of planning and predetermining the boundaries of its undertakings and of their actual performance. True policy decisions will usually be dictated by financial, economic, social and political factors or constraints.

The operational area is concerned with the practical implementation of the formulated policies, it mainly covers the performance or carrying out of a policy. Operational decisions will usually be made on the basis of administrative direction, expert or professional opinion, technical standards or general standards of reasonableness.

[33] The requirement of good faith is an overriding consideration that will extend liability no matter how a particular government act or omission is characterized. At pp.435-6 of Brown, Cory J. said:

It will always be open to a plaintiff to attempt to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the policy decision was not bona fide or was so irrational or unreasonable as to constitute an improper exercise of governmental discretion. This is not a new concept. It has long been recognized that government decisions may be attacked in those relatively rare instances where the policy decision is shown to have been made in bad faith or in circumstances where it is so patently unreasonable that it exceeds governmental discretion. The test to be applied when a policy decision is questioned is set out in City of Kamloops v. Nielsen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2, at p. 24, by Wilson J. in these words:

In my view, inaction for no reason or inaction for an improper reason cannot be a policy decision taken in the bona fide exercise of discretion. Where the question whether the requisite action should be taken has not even been considered by the public authority, or at least has not been considered in good faith, it seems clear that for that very reason the authority has not acted with reasonable care.

[34] In Ingles v. Tutkaluk [2000] 1 S.C.R. 298, the point was again made by Bastarache J. at pp. 311-2:

To determine whether an inspection scheme by a local authority will be subject to a private law duty of care, the court must determine whether the scheme represents a policy decision on the part of the authority, or whether it represents the implementation of a policy decision, at the operational level. True policy decisions are exempt from civil liability to ensure that governments are not restricted in making decisions based upon political or economic factors. It is clear, however, that once a government agency makes a policy decision to inspect, in certain circumstances, it owes a duty of care to all who may be injured by the negligent implementation of that policy; see, for example, Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228, at p. 1243, per Cory J.; Rothfield v. Manolakos, supra, at p. 1266, per La Forest J.

While I have stated above that a government agency will not be liable for those decisions made at the policy level, I must emphasize that, where inspection is provided for by statute, a government agency cannot immunize itself from liability by simply making a policy decision never to inspect. The decisions in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, supra, and Kamloops v. Nielsen, supra, establish that in reaching a policy decision pertaining to inspection, the government agency must act in a reasonable manner which constitutes a bona fide exercise of discretion. In the context of a municipal inspection scheme, we must bear in mind that municipalities are creatures of statute, which have clear responsibilities for health and safety in their area. A policy decision as to whether or not to inspect must accord with this statutory purpose; see, for example, Kamloops v. Nielsen, at p. 10.


[35] The standard of care is set out in Ingles at p.312:

Once it is determined that an inspection has occurred at the operational level, and thus that the public actor owes a duty of care to all who might be injured by a negligent inspection, a traditional negligence analysis will be applied. To avoid liability, the government agency must exercise the standard of care in its inspection that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstances. Recently, in Ryan v. Victoria, supra, at para. 28, Major J. reaffirmed that the measure of what is reasonable in the circumstances will depend on a variety of factors, including the likelihood of a known or foreseeable harm, the gravity of that harm and the burden or cost which would be incurred to prevent the injury. The same standard of care applies to a municipality, which conducts an inspection of a construction project. While the municipal inspector will not be expected to discover every latent defect in a project, or every derogation from the building code standards, it will be liable for those defects that it could reasonably be expected to have detected and to have ordered remedied; see, for example, Rothfield v. Manolakos, supra, at pp. 1268-69.


[36] It is difficult to conceive of an act or omission of a regulatory body that would be the direct or principal cause of faulty construction, but such an act or omission could be a cause of the loss, in conjunction with the other causal factors, if the negligence of the regulatory body materially contributed to the loss. This, for example, was the finding in Manolakos where the deficient construction was predominantly the fault of the contractor. The city's failing in not conducting a proper inspection, however, was judged to have contributed to the loss, which might otherwise have been avoided.

[37] Barring contributory negligence by the plaintiff, defendants mutually contributing to the loss will be jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff. In cases where the participants most contributing to the loss are those responsible for construction, these defendants may be separately incorporated for the individual project and accordingly may not be viable entities when latent defects become apparent. This leaves the other enduring entities associated with the loss exposed to the full force of the judgment.


[38] A municipality's power to regulate construction emanates from Section 694 of the Municipal Act R.S.B.C. c. 323. That section provides that a Municipal Council, "may, for the health, safety and protection of persons and property, by bylaw, do one or more of the following:


Case Studies, Spinnaker West: Hidden condo rot exposed

Look at what we found under the stairs at Mary's leaky condo!

inside the viewing port, Patio Wall Strata Lot 3, showing rot and debris.

More pictures of leaks and rot at Spinnaker West to come!

Case Studies, Pendrell Place: Lynne Gonzalez looks for the money trail - "Containment strategy"

In a previous letters, Mrs. Gonzalez attempted to see the financial statements of the Strata Corporation but her request was blocked by Gord Owens, President of the Strata Council. In this letter, Mrs. Gonzalez responds to a letter from Ascent Real Estate Management Corporation and discusses what she feels is their role in witholding this information and contributing to the continuing disfunction of the Strata Corporation.

8 August 2001

Mr. R.S. Dickson
Ascent Real Estate Management Corporation

re: request in writing to Ascent for financial records re: Owners' Strata VR#1008, located at 1819 Pendrell Street, Vancouver

Dear Mr. Dickson,

I have received your letter dated July 25, 2001, in which you address my unsuccessful and repeated requests to see financial documents relating to Owners' Strata VR#1008.

Although English is my first language, Mr. Dickson, and I also have a B.A. in English Literature and Linguistics, as well as a Masters degree in Library Science from McGill University, I am having difficulties understanding the meaning of your letter. For instance, in your second paragraph, you state that you "do take direction from the strata council, for the most part and in some cases from the ownership in general..." In your third paragraph, you say that you "fully comply" with your contractual agreement with our strata corporation, as well as the Strata Property Act in providing information to the strata council and/or owners. You are aware that I am a member of the current Council, as well as an owner, and you have not provided me with any information. Consequently, what you wrote is either not representing the facts or purposely misleading. More to the point, your employee, Michael Roach, in a fax dated November 24, 2000, to Stephen Hamilton, your lawyer, with a cc. to Marty Lewis, then Chairman of our Strata Council, stated in regard to a written request for financial information from another owner that "until such time as required by the courts, I do not think it is wise to provide him with any documentation..." Further, in a letter dated November 30, 2000, to Marty Lewis, Mr. Roach further expanded on what would appear to be an accepted "containment strategy". He even cites your name.

To date, I am not involved in any legal action against Ascent, the Strata Corporation or any individual owners of our strata. Despite all my efforts to see any financial information relating to my investment, you are addressing my request with the same "containment strategy". It seems to me that you are jeopardizing the well-fare of the strata corporation, which implies twenty-two owners. You are narrowly defining the personal interests of the current council Chairman and Treasurer, as being in the best interests of the Strata Corporation. Your closing statement that you "will leave it to your strata council to determine the response to your request" is seriously flawed because you know that there is currently no functioning strata council: The Chairman, Gordon Owens and Treasurer, Daphne Bramham, are in control and making unilateral decisions that by your acquiecense, you endorse. You have opted for a cozy relationship with the past and current council chairman, rather than taking a leadership role in advising council about not only the letter but the spirit of the Strata Property Act and our Bylaws. Withholding information from owners, hiring tradespeople without proper screening, bids or warranties, engaging legal advice for our strata corporation without consent of all owners, transferring contingency reserve funds to operational expenses without a general vote, are some fo the issues that you have failed to properly manage.

I have spent an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to work within the strata council, to rectify some of the issues listed above and I realize that there are intrinsic problems with this particular Strata Corporation that will require some outside professional intervention. I am, however, disturbed and dismayed by the fact that a well-organized and seemingly efficient real estate management corporation like Ascent has so little respect for the voice of the individual owner who, in the final analysis, is your real client.

The intent of this letter is to express to you a point of view that perhaps you have not been made aware of. The prompt providing of financial information directly to an owner is a right, not a privilege. There is no tenent of the Strata Property Act or our By-laws that state the need for written approval by the council Chairman or Treasurer as individuals in order to have access to our strata's financial documents. (See enclosed letter dated July 9, 2001 from Michael Roach).


Mrs. Lynne Doupe Gonzalez

cc: Owers' Strata Plan VR1008; Mike Mangen; Tony Gioventu, CHOA

Other letters from Mrs. Gonzalez on this issue are:

April 26, 2001
July 19, 2001

This issue is also raised by Mrs. Gonzalez in her June 11, 2001 email to Chris Monk.