Mike Holmes in hot water

[steveray]

I could roll with that. Do you have a joint in mind?

Kind of you bud....

 

[ICE]

We can hash it out later. Jeff is smoking by now. Maybe we should leaf this alone.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

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.

Heh, heh --

I went through this on a high-rise exterior rehab many years ago. The result was that ALL the masons had dreadlocks, spoke with a Jamaican accent, and were (or claimed to be) Rastafarians. They were protected because it's part of their religion.

:shrug: Not my problem. Their work was excellent.

 

[ICE]

Their work was excellent.

Did you mean primo?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Followup story: https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/holmes-response-lawsuit-1.7109625

The curious part of this, for me, is where were the municipal building inspectors?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The curious part of this, for me, is where were the municipal building inspectors?

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.

 

[ICE]

Mike Holmes endorsed TerraceWood on a billboard, in a promotional YouTube video, on social media and in this 2015 print ad. (Third Line Homes/Pinterest)



It'll be a tough sell to get out of this one. He has made the claim that the customers didn't pay extra to have his people inspect the construction. The customers make the claim that "Holmes approved" says it all.

 

[bill1952]

What exactly is Tarion's role in this? Did they invest in the development?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

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.

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.

 

[ICE]

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.

 

[tmurray]

If that were the case in the United States, we wouldn’t issue permits.

It's not that high of a standard.

Basically, you have to have a reasonable application review and inspection regime.

You also need to detect obvious code violations that a "reasonable person" would catch during the inspection.

There are some limits that can be set based on the jurisdiction's financial limitations that allow it to directly rely on statements of assurance by the RDPs of record.

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.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

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.

An example: I'm not expected to inspect *every* truss connection on a 3,000-square-foot single-family dwelling. However, I should at least be able to demonstrate that I've looked at what can be considered a representative sample. If there are 20 trusses, that means 40 connections. If I look at ten (especially at the corners which are more subject to uplift forces) and see the requisite number of nails, I'm probably OK. Six? Five? I won't be OK if I only look at one or two....

If there's a 12'-long load-bearing lintel, I should notice if there is only one jack stud either side, rather than the required two.

If a plumber has drilled a 4" hole in the subfloor, and demolished the top chord of a web joist, I should probably find that .... but if that happens *after* I sign off on a framing, and the ceiling underneath is drywalled before my next inspection, I'm probably OK - as long as I can demonstrate that one of the things I do is look for and respond to plumbers drilling holes through the top chords of joists. (Which I can, just by pulling pictures of damaged top chords and inspection reports that require repairs....)