steveray
SAWHORSE
Kind of you bud....I could roll with that. Do you have a joint in mind?
Kind of you bud....I could roll with that. Do you have a joint in mind?
If it is clear that they are consuming cannabis, you have a legal responsibility to contact WorkSafeNB. Not sure what they can do about it though.
Did you mean primo?Their work was excellent.
The curious part of this, for me, is where were the municipal building inspectors?
SOP in Canadian law. But in this case, there's traction. A lawsuit that emerged in 2021 really set a critical precedent: if a permit has been issued, inspectors *must* actively monitor the construction. If the inspectors cannot document that they engaged in suitable inspections, it's game over.Apparently the lawyers are asking the same question. According to the article, the municipal inspectors have been named in the lawsuit along with the builders.
If that were the case in the United States, we wouldn’t issue permits.SOP in Canadian law. But in this case, there's traction. A lawsuit that emerged in 2021 really set a critical precedent: if a permit has been issued, inspectors *must* actively monitor the construction. If the inspectors cannot document that they engaged in suitable inspections, it's game over.
If the inspectors can't show that the claimed structural/cladding defects were not obvious, nor would have been found by prudent inspections, it's game over.
If that were the case in the United States, we wouldn’t issue permits.
Furthermore, the inspector is not expected to ensure the construction is free from defects, just that defects that are likely to cause significant injury or financial loss are identified and all reasonable steps to correction are taken.