THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 17-012-RDO continued
g. The Member recommended repairs for mitigation of the sinkhole.
“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. 4. 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 neighbor. 5. The Client informed the Member that the area excavated was 10 feet deep and 3-feet away from the front corner of her home. 6. The Member learned 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. 7. As the sewer repair did not resolve all the sewer issues, an additional repair was required in October 2013. 8. Based on the information provided to him by his Client, the Member determined, upon visual review, it was reasonable to conclude that the excavation would have created stress on the foundation of the Client’s home. 9. In his report dated April 29, 2014, the Member indicated: a. There was significant settling of the (Client’s) home, specifically the northeast corner. b. The settlement was due to a large-diameter but shallow sinkhole created by the Complainant’s excavation. c. The sinkhole was clearly due to the improper backfill and lack of compaction at the excavation site. d. The excavation contributed to the cracking seen in the basement of the Client’s home and to the sinking of the northeast corner of the front sunroom. e. The lack of compaction of the sinkhole is why the fill is settling and not supporting the concrete foundation walls of both homes. f. Repairs to the Client’s home are needed as a result of the improper excavation that was completed by the neighbour.
10. A follow-up inspection report was completed by the Member dated September 16, 2014. The site visit consisted of a visual inspection only. The report indicated: a. The sinkhole is expanding. b. There are signs of continued cracking in the Client’s basement walls. c. The stress to the foundation walls is due to the movement in the soils from the original 2013 excavation. d. It is clear that unmanaged water from the Complainant’s roof is creating the sinkhole and compacting the fill. e. The roof water will continue to move the fines in the soil from the sinkhole to the front of the street. Erosion of the grade below will continue to compromise both adjacent front porches and the foundation walls of both homes. f. The Member recommended repairs. 11. 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. 12. 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, dated June 12, 2015, produced. 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.” 13. Realizing he was being sued, the Complainant retained [Company C] a second time on December 14, 2015, this time to conduct a geotechnical investigation of the soils located in his front yard. a. A test hole was drilled to 7.6 metres and soil samples were obtained. b. One soil sample taken at a depth of 2.3 metres was taken for lab testing.
WINTER 2017 PEG | 57
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker