Another tidbit from the link above that I provide without comment.
[23] Commencing at some time in 2018, concerns began to be expressed by a structural engineer unrelated to the parties (“Leon”) that there were defects in the structural design of the Building. Those concerns resulted in an investigation being launched by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (“EGBC”).
[24] As part of the EGBC investigation, Trilogy retained an independent structural engineering firm (“Stantec”) to conduct a preliminary review of Trilogy’s design of the Building. Stantec’s report dated July 26, 2019 was provided to Trilogy that same day (the “Stantec report). The Stantec report indicated that the Building’s core walls may be deficient under seismic load and that the structural detailing for some of the major seismic resisting elements may not be in compliance with the British Columbia Building Code (“Code”). The Stantec report offered suggestions as to how the deficiencies on the lateral-resisting system could be reduced.
[25] McKay was aware of the concerns that were circulating about the design of the Building prior to July 2019.
[26] On July 26, 2019, upon receipt of the Stantec report, McClure sent an email to McKay and DB Services (and others) stating:
[…] As I mentioned before, we are confident that no remediation will be required for the building. There are a few areas of the building that are non-code compliant, but there are no life-safety issues […]. We retained Stantec and their seismic specialist to review the building and they agree with our assessment, so I do not think Leon will have much in the way of rebuttal […].
[27] Ultimately, the EGBC determined that the Building did not meet certain requirements of the Code.
[28] Centurion LP and Centurion GP were unaware of any concerns regarding defects in the structural integrity of the Building until December 2019, almost four months after the APS had closed.
[29] On December 20, 2019, Langford revoked the occupancy permit for the Building on the basis that deficiencies in its design and structural integrity created risks to the safety of its residents. All residents were required to vacate the Building.
[30] McClure has now admitted that:
a) the structural design of the Building was deficient;
b) aspects of the seismic design of the Building did not comply with the Code;
c) aspects of the design of the gravity load resisting system of the Building did not comply with the Code;
d) the existence of such defects demonstrated incompetence on his part;
e) he demonstrated unprofessional conduct by failing to undertake an adequate design process;
f) he demonstrated unprofessional conduct with respect to the performance of field reviews;
g) he should not have designed the core footings of the Building because he was not qualified to do so;
h) no design reviews or independent reviews of any part of the design of the Building were conducted prior to its construction;
i) the Building, as originally constructed, was not as safe as it was supposed to be;
j) based on the objectives of the Code, the structural design of the Building presented an unacceptable risk to the safety of the residents of the Building; and
k) some of the Building’s design defects had to be remediated to reduce the risk of the structure collapsing or failing to an acceptable level of risk.