Case Studies, Pendrell Place: Jeff Benna (Re/Max) informed of leaks, rot and litigation
Subject: PH 2, 1819 Pendrell St., MLS®: V611976 $639,000
Jeff,
Thanks for returning my
call.
This will confirm our conversation in which I
referred you to our Case Study of Pendrell Place, which you can read
at
http://blog.myleakycondo.com/index.php?op=Default&postCategoryId=540&blogId=1060
More specifically, I informed you that the
Vendor of PH 2 was being sued as a member of the Strata Corporation and the
Owner of Strata Lot 20, Strata Plan VR 1008, other wise known as Pendrell Place,
1819 Pendrell St., Vancouver. The Court
File Number is VLC-S-S-065653, Oldaker v. Coleman, filed September 01,
2006.
This new case is in addition to other
outstanding legal issues at Pendrell Place.
Furthermore, please be aware that the owners
will be confronted with a special resolution on October 18, 2006, to raise
additional funds regarding authorized partial repairs to the east wall, leaving
further work to be funded and done at a later date.
Please provide complete disclosure to any and
all potential purchasers.
You may find it helpful to refer potential
purchasers to
myleakycondo.com's
Blog
Dr. James
Balderson, Ph.D., Q.S.
COLCO: The
Coalition of Leaky Condo Owners
www.myleakycondo.com
T
604-739-4190 F
604-739-4109
E
JamesBalderson@myleakycondo.com
Leaky condo developer Michael Audain pioneered the use of origiinal artwork to sell homes
|
Case Studies, Pendrell Place: PH 2 For Sale (again) in leaky rotten condo complex
Some Questions re Strata Lot #20 (PH2, 1819 Pendrell, just down the hall from Mr. Oldaker's uninhabitable leaky rotten penthouse condo, PH4, at Pendrell Place):
1. Is CMHC mortgage insurance available? (NO)
2. Has the building envelope renovation now been completed? (NO)
3. Is there any litigation pending? (YES)
4. Have all previous interior repairs and renovation been permitted? (NO)
5. Have there been any unrecorded alterations to the Strata Plan? (Yes)
6. Is the strata corporation in full compliance with the relevant legislation? (NO)

Place Fontainebleau (Coquitlam): Owners successful in adding defendants on second try
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: | The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 343 v. Haseman Canada Corp., |
| 2006 BCSC 1457 |
Date: 20060919
Docket: L051694
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 343
Plaintiff
And:
Haseman Canada Corporation, Kenji Hasegawa, Katsuo Ono, Allan Lee,
Gauvin Construction Ltd., Interplan Architecture & Planning Inc., John W. Scott,
Columbia Waterproofing Ltd., Indalex Limited, Starline Windows Ltd.,
F.E.I. Construction Ltd,. JEM Sundecks Ltd., John Doe formerly known as D & G
Decking Installations Ltd., John Doe formerly known as Pacific Engineered Concrete
Waterproofing Ltd. and John Doe formerly known as Precision Plastering Ltd.
Defendants
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Tysoe
Oral Reasons for Judgment
In Chambers
September 19, 2006
Counsel for the Plaintiff: | A.L. Baker | |
Counsel for Haseman Canada Corporation: | S.G. Cordell | |
Counsel for Gauvin Construction Ltd.: | J.D. Morin
|
|
Counsel for Interplan Architecture & Planning Inc. and John W. Scott:
| H.B. Borlack |
|
Place of Hearing: | Vancouver, B.C. |
|
[1] THE COURT: The Defendants, Haseman Canada Corporation, Gauvin Construction Ltd., Interplan Architecture & Planning Inc. and John W. Scott, (“the Applicants”) each apply for the dismissal or stay of this action on the basis that it is abuse of process.
[2] This action relates to the design and construction of a 130-unit complex within nine buildings located in Coquitlam, B.C. Occupancy permits for the three phases of construction were issued between 1992 and 1996. Water leakage and cracking of stucco was noticed by 1996. In October 1996, a maintenance contractor recommended to the Plaintiff’s property manager that a building envelope consultant or specialist be retained. Some repairs were effected later in that decade and extensive remediation work took place in 2004 and 2005.
[3] On June 30, 2000, the Plaintiff commenced Action No. L001792 asserting claims against the City of Coquitlam, John Doe, and others (the "First Action”). There was not a lot of activity in the First Action until 2005 when the Plaintiff made an application to substitute the Applicants and another party for John Doe and others. The application was subsequently amended to alternatively seek the addition of the Applicants and the other party as defendants in the First Action, and the request for substitution was abandoned at the hearing of the application.
[4] The application was heard by Mr. Justice Pitfield over the course of three days. On the last day of the hearing, counsel for the Plaintiff advised the Court that it had commenced this action against the Applicants and others on the preceding day, July 7, 2005.
[5] One of the arguments made by the Plaintiff to Mr. Justice Pitfield was that joinder of the Applicants to the First Action should be preferred to the alternative of commencing a separate action against them and applying for consolidation of the separate actions. However, there was a very substantial difference between these two alternatives. If the Applicants were joined to the First Action, they would have lost the right to assert a limitation defence under the Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, as a result of the provisions of s. 4(1) of the Act. Conversely, if the Applicants were not joined to the First Action, any limitation defence that may have accrued to their benefit would have been preserved.
[6] There were differing positions before Mr. Justice Pitfield as to whether the limitation period had expired as against the Applicants at the time of the hearing. It was the position of the Plaintiff that it had not expired as a result of the postponement provisions of s. 6(3) of the Limitation Act. The Applicants maintained that the limitation period had expired. Mr. Justice Pitfield took the approach endorsed by numerous authorities that he should consider the application on the assumption that the limitation period had expired. The positions of each of the parties remain the same at this hearing, and it is common ground that I am not to make a determination on this application whether the limitation period expired prior to the commencement of this action.
[7] By Reasons for Judgment issued on August 8, 2005, and cited as The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 343 v. City of Coquitlam, 2005 BCSC 1150, Mr. Justice Pitfield dismissed the Plaintiff’s application to join the Applicants as defendants in the First Action. Mr. Justice Pitfield reviewed the extent of the connection between the existing claims and the claim against the proposed defendants, the delay of the Plaintiff, the reasons given for the delay, and the prejudice to the parties. The essence of his reasoning was that the prejudice to the Applicants in the event they were added as Defendants in the First Action outweighed the prejudice to the Plaintiff in the event that they were not added.
[8] On September 2, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a notice of application for leave to appeal in respect to the decision of Mr. Justice Pitfield. A hearing of the leave application has not been scheduled and no other steps have been taken in the appeal. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has taken numerous steps in the furtherance of this action, as well as the First Action and a third action which has been commenced to bring in additional parties, since the issuance of Mr. Justice Pitfield’s decision, including the setting of a trial date next fall. Counsel for the Plaintiff advised me at the hearing of this application that the Plaintiff will abandon the appeal if I dismiss these applications.
[9] The Applicants say that there are the following two bases to dismiss or stay this action as an abuse of process:
Will Harper keep his promise to leaky condo owners?
![]() ![]() |
Tuesday » September 19 » 2006
|
|||||
Tories pushed over leaky condos
Group wants to make sure PM will honour vow
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 OTTAWA - A group representing some of B.C.'s estimated 65,000 victims in the $1.5-billion leaky condo crisis is giving Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government a deadline to prove it intends to honour its vow to review the government's role and possible culpability in the disaster. A representative of Human Resources Minister Diane Finley said earlier Monday that a new option has emerged since the minister wrote to victims in July saying the government couldn't even "consider" a review while the government is being sued by some owners. "We're currently studying options as to how we can proceed without compromising current legal proceedings, as we have recently learned that there may exist review options that will not interfere in these proceedings," Colleen Cameron, Finley's press secretary, wrote in an e-mail to The Sun on Monday. "Unfortunately, I can not provide detail about these options at this time, only assure you that we remain committed to a review." The president of a B.C. advocacy group said Monday she has asked the government to clarify its position by Sept. 30. The tight deadline, she said, is intended to show whether the Harper government is sincere or just putting up "a smokescreen." "What is clear [is that] our society does not want owners of leaky homes to be re-victimized with false hopes and used for election purposes," Carmen Maretic, president of Consumer Advocacy and Support for Homeowners, wrote in an e-mail to The Vancouver Sun. B.C. Conservative MP John Cummins, meanwhile, has written to one leaky condo owner assuring him Harper will keep his Dec. 17, 2005 campaign promise. "His commitment to carry out a review of the federal government's involvement or contribution to the leaky condo disaster was an integral part of his platform to clean up government and restore accountability," Cummins (Delta-Richmond East) wrote in a letter sent last week to Dan Healey. "A commitment made by this prime minister can be relied upon. I have found Mr. Harper to be a man of his word," wrote Cummins in the letter provided to The Sun by Healey. Finley sent a letter on July 17 to CASH, a consumer group established to seek compensation for the thousands of B.C. residents whose homes and property values were devastated by moisture damage. "As I'm sure you can appreciate, it would not be appropriate for me to comment or to consider initiating a review into leaky condo issues while these matters are before the courts," she wrote. CASH president Maretic, noting that leaky condo court cases were underway before the election promise, responded last week by accusing the government of breaking its commitment to voters. Harper vowed during the election to "review CMHC's handling of construction regulations and 'leaky condos.'" A press release accompanying the platform boasted that Conservative MPs pushed CMHC "to investigate how it failed to warn homeowners about potential problems with 'leaky condos.'" In an exclusive interview with The Vancouver Sun after the announcement, Harper said he'd consider compensation for condo owners following the review. Cummins told Healey he has already advised the government on options to fulfil the promise. "It is time to get this matter settled through a competent and credible transparent review process," Cummins wrote to Healey. "Any review, if it is to be credible, must be public and clearly independent of" the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), a federal agency. Healey also released a letter Cummins sent to Finley in April that called on the government to strike a formal inquiry under the federal Inquiries Act. The MP, whose research uncovered federal documents from the early 1980s warning of a potential housing disaster in coastal areas due to new federal housing regulations, said the condo disaster could very well repeat itself. "All the factors that were in place in the late '70s are in place again," Cummins wrote, citing rising energy prices and growing pressure to build energy-efficient housing. "Finding out what went wrong in Vancouver and the federal government's role in it may turn out to be an extraordinarily important work and have significant impact on the future." poneil1@hotmail.com © The Vancouver Sun 2006
|
||||||
![]() |
![]() |