THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 17-013-RDO continued
7. On October 3, 2014, the Client filed a Civil Claim against the Complainant for damages to their home as a result of the Complainant’s excavation. The Client relied on the Member’s reports which confirmed the damages and their cause. 8. In defence of the Civil Claim, the Complainant retained [Company C] in the spring of 2015 to inspect and provide their assessment of the neighbour’s allegations. A site visit was completed and a Report was produced dated June 12, 2015. The findings of the Report contradicted the Member’s findings, stating: “Based on the information gathered during this assessment, a settlement analysis due to excavation using current methods indicated that the noted excavation should and would not cause any settlement to the Plaintiff’s (Client’s) House.” 9. A follow-up inspection report was completed by the Member on August 24, 2015. The report consisted of a review of the [Company C] report that was commissioned by the Complainant. The Report indicated: a. That based on the Member’s company’s work history in the area, the soils consist of silty sand or sandy silt. b. The Member maintained their original assessment; that being that water could flow through the soils due to the Member’s previously identified conditions: i. lack of compaction ii. improper lot grading iii. overall lack of water management. c. The sinkhole was growing in size as more surface water was allowed to flow into the area. d. Ponding water has led to washing out the fines of the backfilled material and thus created spaces within the sand. Undisturbed soils on the edge of the excavation have now moved into the excavated area and have caused settlement of the foundation and cracking of the foundation wall. e. Due to the movement of soils, the gas meter of the client’s home has pulled away from the exterior of the home. f. That unmanaged water from the Complainant’s lot and the lack of compaction of the excavated area has created the Client’s problems.
B. AGREED STATETMENT OF FACTS Background
2. The Member was retained by [Complainant A’s neighbour] (the “Client”), to provide an inspection regarding cracks she observed in the home’s basement foundation wall and on the stucco wall of their attached sunroom. The Member conducted an onsite inspection on May 30, 2015. 3. The Member was informed by the Client that an excavation took place at the front of the Complainant’s yard and it was located near the property line of the neighbour. 4. The Member learned that the excavation was needed to repair a damaged sewer pipe on the Complainant’s property, shortly after the floods had swept through the Calgary area in June 2013. 5. Based on the information provided to him by his Client and by his own visual review, the Member provided his report which contained his opinion as to the probable cause that would have created stress on the foundation of the Client’s home. 6. In his Report dated June 8, 2015, the Member indicated: a. The material used as backfill in the excavation was native silty sand. b. There were no eavestroughs located on the Complainant’s home and surface grading appeared to drain surface water towards the excavated area. c. The stratigraphy of the area consisted of silty sand overlying gravel and that water can easily flow through the soils, leading to the migration of fine soils into the underlying gravel. d. As the fine soils washed away, a small sinkhole appeared. This movement of the silty sand has led to the softening of the foundation soils and ultimately caused the cracking of the neighbor’s foundation. e. The sinkhole, if not repaired, will continue to increase in size and further damage the client’s residence. f. Repairs for the sinkhole could be made and he provided recommendations.
WINTER 2017 PEG | 51
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker