http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

·1

·2

·3

·4· · · · · ·ELLIOT LAKE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

·5

·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·--------

·7

·8

·9

10

11· ·--- This is Day 53 in the Inquiry proceedings held

12· ·before the Honourable Justice P.R. Bélanger, Commissioner,

13· ·taken at the White Mountain Academy of the Arts, 99 Spine

14· ·Road, Elliot Lake, Ontario, on Thursday, the 30th day of

15· ·May, 2013, commencing at 9:00 a.m. ---

16

17

18· · · · · · · · · · · ·---------

19

20

21· · · · · · · REPORTED BY:· Lisa Barrett

22· · · · · · · · · · ·CSR, CRR, RPR

23

24

25

·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S:

·2· · ·Bruce Carr-Harris, Esq.,· · · · · ·Commission Counsel

·3· · ·Nadia Authier, Esq.,

·4

·5· · ·Paul Cassan, Esq.,· · · · · · · · ·City of Elliot Lake

·6

·7· · ·David Outerbridge, Esq.,· · · · · ·EXP. Global Inc.

·8

·9· · ·Chuck Myles, Esq.,· · · · · · · · ·SAGE

10

11· · ·Michael Title, Esq.,· · · · · · · ·Eastwood Mall Inc.

12

13· · ·James Hodgson, Esq.,· · · · · · · ·Halsall Consultants

14

15· · ·John Picone, Esq,

16

17· · ·Alexandra Carr, Esq.,· · · · · · · ·ELMAC

18· · ·Kristin Smith, Esq.,· · · · · · · ·Government of Ontario

19

20· · ·Joseph Bisceglia, Esq.,· · · · · · Gregory Saunders

21

22· · ·Robert MacRae, Esq.,· · · · · · · ·Robert Wood

23· · ·Douglas Kearns, Esq.,· · · · · · · Retirement Living and

24· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Nordev

25· · ·Mario Delgado, Esq,· · · · · · · · James Keywan

·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S:

·2

·3· ·Charles Criminisi, Esq.,· · · · · ·Coreslab

·4

·5

·6

·7

·8

·9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X

·2

·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGES

·4· ·WITNESS PANEL: CONTINUED

·5· ·DR. POURIA GHODS, ON FORMER AFFIRMATION

·6· ·DR. HASSAN SAFFARINI, ON FORMER AFFIRMATION

·7· ·MR. CHRISTOPHER HUGHES, ON FORMER AFFIRMATION

·8· ·MR. AARON DINOVITZER, ON FORMER AFFIRMATION

·9

10· ·CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. OUTERBRIDGE ....... 12436 - 12479

11· ·CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MacRAE ............ 12479 - 12551

12· ·CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BISCEGLIA· ........ 12551 - 12560

13· ·CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CARR .............. 12560 - 12581

14· ·CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEARNS ............ 12581 - 12608

15· ·CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DELGADO· .......... 12608 - 12639

16· ·CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CASSAN ............ 12639 - 12673

17· ·RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. CARR-HARRIS .......... 12673 - 12676

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

·1· · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX OF EXHIBITS

·2

·3· ·NUMBER/DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE

·4

·5· · · 5192· · ·Document No. NL2275,· · · · · ·12614

·6· · · · · · · ·listing a number of

·7· · · · · · · ·members of the Engineering

·8· · · · · · · ·team.

·9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

·1· ·--- Commenced at 9:05 a.m.

·2· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Good morning,

·3· ·everybody.

·4· · · · · · · · · MR. CARR-HARRIS:· Mr. Commissioner,

·5· ·I was wondering -- I want to bring to my friends'

·6· ·attention and the hearing's, that in the animation

·7· ·video, Exhibit No. 5159 you will recall there was

·8· ·a visual inspection survey map which the witnesses

·9· ·prepared, indicating all the locations of their

10· ·visual survey.

11· · · · · · · · · That document is not in the report.

12· ·It's a document that they prepared, based on -- now,

13· ·Dr. Saffarini could say, but I understand it was

14· ·simply based on the inspection and for ease of

15· ·reference?

16· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· (Dr. Saffarini) It is

17· ·the same information that is in the report, just

18· ·illustrated in a graphical way to illustrate where

19· ·the locations of severe, fair, and good conditions

20· ·are.

21· · · · · · · · · MR. CARR-HARRIS:· Thank you.· And

22· ·that visual inspection survey map is at page 42, in

23· ·Exhibit No. 5159.

24· · · · · · · · · Thank you for the interruption.

25· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Who is next in

·1· ·terms of cross-examination.· Mr. Outerbridge, are

·2· ·you?

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. OUTERBRIDGE:· Good morning,

·4· ·Mr. Commissioner.

·5· · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. OUTERBRIDGE:

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Good morning, gentlemen.

·7· · · · · · · · · Hi, I'm David Outerbridge.· I am the

·8· ·lawyer for Trow and I'm just going to ask you a few

·9· ·questions primarily related to Trow.

10· · · · · · · · · Now, yesterday, Mr. Criminisi took

11· ·you to the Alex Tobias structural engineering report

12· ·that was attached to Trow's 1995 report and I just

13· ·want to ask you some questions about that.

14· · · · · · · · · If we could bring up Exhibit No. 51.

15· ·So, Exhibit No. 51 is the Trow, November 6th, 1995

16· ·letter report to Algoma Central Properties and you

17· ·will recall the Alex Tobias report is attached to

18· ·that.

19· · · · · · · · · And if we can turn to the Tobias

20· ·report, and go back to section 7.3 which is the

21· ·section we were looking at yesterday, as you spoke

22· ·to yesterday, and as we see here, Alex Tobias'

23· ·conclusion or recommendation as it's described here

24· ·is that a 20 pound per square foot maximum weight of

25· ·new waterproofing system could be added to the

·1· ·existing core slabs, and I think Dr. Saffarini, when

·2· ·you were discussing this with Mr. Criminisi

·3· ·yesterday, the way you described it was that Alex

·4· ·Tobias had found a way out, I think was the phrase

·5· ·that you'd turned, that this was a -- by not using

·6· ·the full 75 pounds per square foot of live load,

·7· ·they were able to find -- Tobias was able to find

·8· ·20 pounds per square foot to allow for a thin

·9· ·asphaltic waterproofing system?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Correct.

11· ·Reallocating the 75.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And your testimony yesterday was

13· ·that this was an acceptable approach; I believe

14· ·that's what you said yesterday.

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) This is

16· ·an acceptable approach in the sense that I think

17· ·that the 25 extra, which would -- and we point this

18· ·out in our report, is the use of part of the snow

19· ·load, as in 50 per cent of the snow load in

20· ·association with the live load, were on the

21· ·conservative side, so living with only the live load

22· ·of the cars, and assuming that the presence of snow

23· ·and a full parking garage would not be coincidental.

24· · · · · · · · · That would be the logic that Alex

25· ·Tobias had followed.· In current codes, in modern

·1· ·codes you assume what is called a companion load and

·2· ·you have the full live load and then you have

·3· ·50 per cent of the -- or a factor of 50 per cent

·4· ·applied to companion load, to assume that there

·5· ·would be some snow associated with the live load.

·6· · · · · · · · · So, is it a legitimate course of

·7· ·action?· I would say "yes."

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, the Trow Report to which

·9· ·the Tobias report is attached, reflected this

10· ·approach.· So if we turn to page 3 of the Trow

11· ·Report -- that's part of the same document -- down

12· ·towards the bottom of page 3 -- we see Trow sets out

13· ·two repair options, and Option 1, starting on

14· ·page 3, and over onto page 4, recommends

15· ·a waterproofing membrane and a new asphaltic based

16· ·waterproofing system?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And that's -- so the approach

19· ·that Trow was proposing in 1995, was essentially

20· ·this approach that you've described as being

21· ·an acceptable approach?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Correct, and in

23· ·our summary, in fact, we say that this is the

24· ·recommendation that Trow is -- has recommended

25· ·waterproofing because they gave two options and

·1· ·recommended one of them.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And so this -- just to be clear

·3· ·though -- this was -- the Trow recommendation and

·4· ·Tobias recommendation was a viable way of repairing

·5· ·the roof on the Algo Mall?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, that would

·7· ·be our opinion.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And I think yesterday you

·9· ·said -- you talked about the solution as being

10· ·an effective solution in a couple of different

11· ·senses.

12· · · · · · · · · One was that as between waterproofing

13· ·and caulking and sealing, waterproofing, I think you

14· ·said was the -- I think at one point yesterday, you

15· ·said it was the ideal solution and another time

16· ·I think you said it was the only viable solution; is

17· ·that fair?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, I think,

19· ·between the two ideas and viable, one is not viable

20· ·so the other would be the viable and the correct

21· ·approach.

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And that's the waterproofing and

23· ·the asphaltic wearing course?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is correct.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The other aspect of this

·1· ·approach that I think you said yesterday was

·2· ·appropriate or viable was that the use of

·3· ·an asphaltic wearing course of up to 20 pounds per

·4· ·square foot was, in fact, an available option in

·5· ·1995.· There were wearing courses that -- using, for

·6· ·example, mastic asphalt that could be applied with

·7· ·less than 20 pounds per square foot?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, yes.· We

·9· ·said that it was even available in 1982 when the

10· ·first report came up with similar recommendations.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And we've heard in this Inquiry,

12· ·evidence from -- from the Trow witnesses that

13· ·a mastic asphalt wearing course of less than

14· ·20 pounds per square foot was available.· We heard

15· ·from a witness from Algoma that he had reached the

16· ·conclusion that a wearing course of that lightness

17· ·was not available, and I take it from what you're

18· ·telling me, the Trow evidence is the correct

19· ·evidence and the Algoma evidence is incorrect?

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I don't want to

21· ·characterize anybody as saying -- being correct or

22· ·incorrect but yes, what I just told you is that it

23· ·is available.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, within the same document,

25· ·the Trow 1995 report that's on the screen, Exhibit

·1· ·No. 51, Trow identifies a second option for what

·2· ·they describe as consideration -- for consideration,

·3· ·which is Option 2 and as you see on the screen, it

·4· ·involved installing caulking in the joints,

·5· ·installing additional or modifying the drains,

·6· ·installing a new expansion joint, et cetera, and you

·7· ·noted yesterday, as is set out in this report, that

·8· ·Trow had recommended Option 1, the waterproofing

·9· ·option over this caulk and seal option.

10· · · · · · · · · Now, Mr. Hodgson, when he was

11· ·questioning you, he put a question to you that

12· ·suggested that in 1995 Trow didn't say -- this was

13· ·his suggestion -- that Trow didn't say that Option 2

14· ·wouldn't work.

15· · · · · · · · · His question to you was

16· ·specifically -- talking about Trow:

17· · · · · · · · · · "And in their reports they

18· · · · · · · · · don't say that this system will

19· · · · · · · · · not work, if it's properly

20· · · · · · · · · routed and sealed, do they?"

21· · · · · · · · · And as the questioning and answering

22· ·went on, I don't think that specific question got

23· ·answered but I just want to confirm with you that

24· ·I think Mr. Hodgson got it wrong.· I just wanted to

25· ·make sure that you agree with that, that -- if we

·1· ·look under the recommendations section, a little

·2· ·further down the screen, you see Trow recommending

·3· ·the waterproofing option, with the asphaltic

·4· ·membrane and they say that their recommendation is

·5· ·based on the following criteria, and we see in

·6· ·paragraph (b) that they say:

·7· · · · · · · · · · "Option 1 assures complete

·8· · · · · · · · · repair ..."

·9· · · · · · · · · Do you see that?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And in paragraph (c) in the

12· ·second sentence they state that:

13· · · · · · · · · · "... option 2 only addresses

14· · · · · · · · · a small percentage of the

15· · · · · · · · · problem ..."

16· · · · · · · · · If we could go over to the next

17· ·page -- and Option 2, of course, is the rout and

18· ·seal that they're saying would only address a small

19· ·percentage of the problem.

20· · · · · · · · · Would you agree with me it's fair to

21· ·say that Trow did actually say in their report that

22· ·Option 2, the rout and seal option would not solve

23· ·the problem?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I don't know

25· ·that they said that it will not solve the problem.

·1· ·They indicated that there are shortcomings in taking

·2· ·this option.· So they clearly favored the option of

·3· ·waterproofing.

·4· · · · · · · · · I don't think that they said that

·5· ·this option is not a viable or it is an ineffective

·6· ·option but it has numerous shortcomings.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, at least in effect to

·8· ·achieve a complete repair, that's what they're

·9· ·saying, it wouldn't completely repair the roof?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, the first

11· ·said "complete" the other did not say "incomplete"

12· ·but it kind of listed the shortcomings of the second

13· ·option.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· And I mean we don't need

15· ·to quibble over what it says --

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yeah, I think it

17· ·says what it says, which is clear.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Their recommendation, in short,

19· ·was that if you want a solution that solves the

20· ·entire problem, you go with Option 1, the

21· ·waterproofing option?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I agree and

23· ·that's what we said in the report, yes.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And in your report, which

25· ·I believe is Exhibit No. 3007, maybe we can turn to

·1· ·that, page 66 of the report.

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Okay, yes.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·We see in section -- let's just

·4· ·situate ourselves, this section of your report

·5· ·starting on page 58 is the section called "Review of

·6· ·design" and in section 4.1.4 on page 66, we see you

·7· ·refer to the CSA standard, S413 -- I am sorry, I'll

·8· ·wait until you get to the page.

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Thank you, yes.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You refer to CSA standard S413

11· ·titled "Parking Structures" and this was a standard

12· ·that was applicable to the new construction of

13· ·parking garages; is that right?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) It is applicable

15· ·to parking garages.· What -- are you implying that

16· ·it would not be applicable to a renovation job?

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·My point is -- and I'm not

18· ·trying to get into a controversial point, my

19· ·understanding is that this standard is referenced in

20· ·the OBC for construction for new parking garages but

21· ·with respect to repair jobs, as you point out in

22· ·your report, it's not mandated by the OBC, it's

23· ·an available guideline?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) The OBC, in

25· ·principle and now we go back to the OBC -- the owner

·1· ·would be bound by once he has received the permit

·2· ·and the occupancy for the building, if there were to

·3· ·be a major renovation, say, if the owner had decided

·4· ·to introduce a new waterproofing system, then he

·5· ·would have to comply with the current code, with the

·6· ·current OBC code, and the grandfather in -- of what

·7· ·he has, would no longer be the reference.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, no, that's fine.· Thank

·9· ·you.

10· · · · · · · · · Now, this -- as you point out in your

11· ·report, the standard was first published in 1987.

12· ·My understanding -- the 1987 standard doesn't appear

13· ·to be in Relativity although we have a subsequent

14· ·version of the standard in Relativity, I do have the

15· ·original here and I might ask that it be introduced

16· ·into Relativity after today.

17· · · · · · · · · The only point about the '87 standard

18· ·that I wanted to confirm is that the person who

19· ·chaired the technical committee for the '87 standard

20· ·was, in fact, Mr. John Bickley from Trow; is that

21· ·right?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I wouldn't know,

23· ·but I trust that you have that information.

24· · · · · · · · · MR. OUTERBRIDGE:· I don't know if --

25· ·I have the '87 standard here.· I confess I have not

·1· ·given it to my friends, so I don't want to surprise

·2· ·anyone but ...

·3· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Why don't we get

·4· ·that into evidence now before we forget to do it,

·5· ·Mr. Outerbridge.

·6· · · · · · · · · MR. OUTERBRIDGE:· Sure, I have extra

·7· ·copies for Mr. Carr-Harris.

·8· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Can we give it a

·9· ·number.

10· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· It will be Exhibit No.

11· ·5191.

12· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Exhibit No. 5191.

13· · · · · · · · · MR. OUTERBRIDGE:· Thank you.

14· · · · · · · · · If it's acceptable to you,

15· ·Mr. Commissioner, I'll provide Ms. Kuka with a copy

16· ·after the questioning.

17· · · · · · · · · Sorry, Ms. Kuka, what was the exhibit

18· ·number?

19· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· Exhibit No. 5191.

20· · · · · · · · · MR. OUTERBRIDGE:· Thank you.

21· · · · · · · · · BY MR. OUTERBRIDGE:

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·If it assists, if I may approach

23· ·the witnesses, I'll just provide you with a copy of

24· ·the standard.

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, thank you.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Confirming, again, that

·2· ·Mr. Bickley was the Chair of the committee.

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, if we could turn back to

·5· ·page 66 of your report, dealing with the standard,

·6· ·you explain in the second paragraph that the CSA

·7· ·standard describes various moisture barrier types

·8· ·including "membranes with traffic wearing course"

·9· ·and you explain that the CSA standard itself talks

10· ·about the traffic deck being thin or thick.

11· · · · · · · · · And my understanding is there are

12· ·sort of two different types of thin.· One is

13· ·straight membrane with no asphaltic wearing course;

14· ·that's the very thin?

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, it's not

16· ·without, but it's with an epoxy which would be

17· ·a very super-thin kind of wearing course, but, yes,

18· ·there would be some protection for the membrane by

19· ·way of an epoxy coating.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And then -- thank you -- when we

21· ·come to asphaltic wearing courses, you can have

22· ·a fairly thin asphaltic wearing course such as the

23· ·mastic asphalt which could be, for example, 25mm,

24· ·I think, is what you refer to in your report?

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And then you can have a thick

·2· ·asphaltic system which may be in the range of

·3· ·3 inches or so?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is correct,

·5· ·yes.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And as you point out here, the

·7· ·CSA standard explained that there were options

·8· ·available for a thinner system that would have

·9· ·provided for more -- would have required more

10· ·maintenance but would have been far more effective

11· ·than the sealer options and here you're talking

12· ·about an option like the mastic asphalt option?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And you conclude the paragraph

15· ·by pointing out that repair of the waterproofing

16· ·could have been done with nominal addition of weight

17· ·starting from a negligible weight increase, as Read

18· ·Jones Christoffersen had specified, to about 10 to

19· ·15 pounds per square foot, as Trow had implied.

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That's what we

21· ·say, yes.

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And so, if I'm understanding

23· ·your report correctly, the repair option that Trow

24· ·was proposing in its '95 report was in line with

25· ·what the CSA parking structure standard

·1· ·contemplated, that's one of the types of repair

·2· ·options that was provided for in the parking

·3· ·standard, parking structure standard?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, and I only

·5· ·refer to the parking structures, not because it is

·6· ·obligatory, it is just as a reference to identify

·7· ·systems that are within standards that have been

·8· ·vetted and they are not a supplier or an opinion,

·9· ·they are standards that have been vetted through the

10· ·system.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, fair enough.· And I simply

12· ·want to confirm that from your perspective, the

13· ·repair option that Trow was proposing in '95, the

14· ·waterproofing and asphalting --

15· · · · · · · · · SPEAKER:· Recommending.

16· · · · · · · · · MR. OUTERBRIDGE:· Sorry?

17· ·Recommending.

18· · · · · · · · · BY MR. OUTERBRIDGE:

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The option that Trow was

20· ·recommending, I'm not sure what I said, but

21· ·apparently I didn't say "recommending", the option

22· ·that Trow was recommending in 1995, the

23· ·waterproofing membrane with the asphaltic wearing

24· ·course, that was an option that was consistent with

25· ·the CSA's standard S413, that you refer to?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) And that's what

·2· ·we say, yes.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, I want compare Trow's

·4· ·recommendation in 1995 with the recommendation that

·5· ·Trow made in 1991 and I wonder if we could pull up

·6· ·Exhibit No. 35.

·7· · · · · · · · · So, Exhibit No. 35 is Trow's May 1991

·8· ·report.· If we can turn to page 14, section 13.0,

·9· ·under the heading "Repair options".· As you know,

10· ·Trow, in 1991 proposed two repair options.· And

11· ·Option 1 is described as "A waterproofing system

12· ·installation over existing concrete topping and

13· ·installation of a new wearing course."

14· · · · · · · · · And there is three paragraphs there,

15· ·the first two talk about repairing the de-bonded

16· ·concrete and -- both on the surface and on the

17· ·soffit, or de-bonded on the surface and unsound on

18· ·the soffit.

19· · · · · · · · · And in paragraph 3, we see Trow

20· ·recommending or stating that Option 1 involved

21· ·"installing a waterproofing membrane and wearing

22· ·course including flashings ..."

23· · · · · · · · · And they don't -- do you agree with

24· ·me, Trow doesn't specify what the wearing course

25· ·would be, doesn't specify whether it's a thick or

·1· ·thin asphalt or even a concrete wearing course?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Sorry, I missed

·3· ·your --

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·No problem.· I just wanted to

·5· ·confirm that Trow doesn't say in the '91 report,

·6· ·what type of wearing course?

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is correct.

·8· ·That's correct.· And, in fact, they still were

·9· ·hedging their bets about how much the slab would be

10· ·able to sustain.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right, and when you say "hedging

12· ·their bets" we see that --

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, I mean

14· ·they're saying they allow additional loading and --

15· ·to be reviewed by structural engineer so ...

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Maybe

18· ·I shouldn't say "hedging their bets" but basically

19· ·-- (Simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·No, I think we're saying the

21· ·same thing.· And so we know that Trow subsequently

22· ·did retain Alex Tobias, a structural engineer, to

23· ·assess the allowable weight and in '95 determined

24· ·that that weight was 20 pounds per square foot?

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And so, if I'm -- am I correct

·2· ·in saying then that what Trow recommended in its

·3· ·'95 report, was, in fact, consistent with and

·4· ·a particularization of Option 1 from their 1991

·5· ·report?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, the way,

·7· ·I think if you read their recommendations, their

·8· ·recommendations were watered down.· In the first

·9· ·report of '91, they said that you could remove the

10· ·entire topping and apply the water proofing membrane

11· ·and then apply a topping that would have probably

12· ·been tempted to have it as a concrete topping, which

13· ·would be a durable topping that would have been

14· ·resistant to snow plowing and what have you.

15· · · · · · · · · And in that case, they would have

16· ·gone -- and they favored that, they considered that

17· ·the favorable option, just as you had correctly

18· ·pointed out, when you give two options and you say

19· ·"But I recommend one of these options" in 1991,

20· ·their favorable option, regardless of whether we

21· ·agree that this is better or not, from Trow's point

22· ·of view, the favorable option was to remove the

23· ·topping, and put the waterproofing membrane, and

24· ·then the less favorable option was the application

25· ·of the asphaltic solution, as in a waterproofing

·1· ·membrane with an asphaltic wearing course.

·2· · · · · · · · · When they came back in 1995, they had

·3· ·relegated the option from the -- they had removed

·4· ·the option that they considered as their favored

·5· ·from are the list, introduced the second option as

·6· ·the first option and then introduced, now, a new

·7· ·option which is the caulking of the joints.

·8· · · · · · · · · So just to characterize things --

·9· ·I mean, I wouldn't say that what they recommended in

10· ·'91 is the same as what they recommended in '95, but

11· ·they overlapped.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And I want to be specific

13· ·about my question.· I appreciate -- I understand

14· ·what you've said.· The specific question was that

15· ·the recommended option in 1995, the waterproofing

16· ·membrane with the asphaltic wearing course is, in

17· ·fact, consistent with Option 1 from 1991?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Correct.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· And that's really the

20· ·only point that I wanted to confirm that it's not --

21· ·Trow didn't conclude in '95 that Option 1, from 1991

22· ·was not viable; they concluded that Option 1 from

23· ·'95 was viable; is that fair?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is fair.

25· ·And they -- yeah, the only thing is that the regime

·1· ·of options had changed.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yeah.· And there is no dispute

·3· ·certainly that the options changed.

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Okay.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, I think there's a passage

·6· ·in your report, and it may simply be

·7· ·an inadvertent -- an inadvertence in the drafting,

·8· ·but I just wanted to confirm one thing with you.

·9· · · · · · · · · If we look at page vi of the

10· ·NORR Report.

11· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· That's Exhibit 3007?

12· · · · · · · · · MR. OUTERBRIDGE:· That's right, yeah.

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) vi, yes.

14· · · · · · · · · BY MR. OUTERBRIDGE:

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I'll be looking at the first

16· ·paragraph.· I'll just wait until it comes up on the

17· ·screen.· So, in the first paragraph at the very top

18· ·of the page -- and maybe we could flip back to the

19· ·previous page, just to see how it begins.

20· · · · · · · · · At the bottom, you describe the two

21· ·options that Trow proposed in 1991 and then if we

22· ·flip over to the top of the next page, you say -- in

23· ·the third line you say in 1995 Trow engaged Alex

24· ·Tobias as a structural consultant and also contacted

25· ·Coreslab and came to the realization that the

·1· ·capacity of the slab was insufficient to accommodate

·2· ·the originally proposed solutions.

·3· · · · · · · · · And I just want to clarify.· That's

·4· ·not quite right, is it?· They came to the conclusion

·5· ·that, as we just described, Option 1 from 1991 could

·6· ·be accommodated, there was enough capacity?

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yeah, if you

·8· ·finish that paragraph, that's exactly what we are

·9· ·saying so we're not contradicting what you are

10· ·saying but we are confirming what I just said

11· ·earlier, that if you view the options that were

12· ·given, those options were now abandoned as a set of

13· ·options in favour of another set of options, and you

14· ·had just earlier indicated that when you had Option

15· ·1 and Option 2, if Option 1 is the favored option,

16· ·then this is the recommendation.

17· · · · · · · · · So, in that context the

18· ·recommendation that they had, is not what they had

19· ·in '95, so I'm being consistent with what you are

20· ·saying.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And that's fine.· I just -- the

22· ·phrasing of the sentence is, you stated --

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) It could be

24· ·misconstrued.· That's what you are saying and I'm

25· ·clarifying any chance of misconstruing this to say

·1· ·that the options have changed with now the favored

·2· ·option being abandoned, the second option

·3· ·becoming -- the second option, of course, had

·4· ·a variety in it, depending on the wearing course,

·5· ·et cetera, a version of that second option became

·6· ·the recommended option, but then there was a second

·7· ·option.

·8· · · · · · · · · So, you will see that there has been

·9· ·a change that is affected by the knowledge of the

10· ·capacity of the hollowcore slab.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And just to confirm

12· ·though, the '91 Option 1 that Trow proposed, there

13· ·was never a time that Trow came to the conclusion,

14· ·as far as you could see, that the slabs could not

15· ·accommodate that option?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, no, we are

17· ·saying that right in the next sentence.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·No, that's fine.· Thank you.

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, the next questions may be

21· ·best for Mr. Dinovitzer or I leave it to you

22· ·gentlemen to decide, but they relate to the rate of

23· ·corrosion.

24· · · · · · · · · On page iv, the page that we are on

25· ·of your report, the first paragraph under the

·1· ·heading "Summary and Commentary on the History of

·2· ·Structural Inspection and Corrosion", in the second

·3· ·sentence there is a reference to BMT having:

·4· · · · · · · · · · "... estimated the corrosion

·5· · · · · · · · · rate in the structural steel of

·6· · · · · · · · · the mall at around 0.1mm/year."

·7· · · · · · · · · And I understand that is based on

·8· ·certain assumptions as you describe in your BMT

·9· ·report.· In the last sentence of the next paragraph,

10· ·so the paragraph beginning "The first five years",

11· ·you state that:

12· · · · · · · · · · "... there is no evidence or

13· · · · · · · · · technical reason to suggest that

14· · · · · · · · · the rate of corrosion suddenly

15· · · · · · · · · accelerated at that time."

16· · · · · · · · · Referring to towards the time of the

17· ·collapse in the latter period of the mall's life,

18· ·and that's right, there was no -- as far as you

19· ·could tell, there was no rapid acceleration of

20· ·corrosion at the mall?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) There is -- the

22· ·.1mm assumes a linear constant rate.· We know that

23· ·there are variations from that.· There is

24· ·a potential, as the wastage increases, the joint --

25· ·the connection detail becomes more flexible and as

·1· ·it deforms or is stretched, it breaks the corrosion

·2· ·product, and it can have a slight acceleration of

·3· ·the -- its life and but not· -- (Simultaneous

·4· ·speakers - unclear) --

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And maybe I should distinguish.

·6· ·I am referring not specifically to the connection

·7· ·that failed but to corrosion in the mall generally,

·8· ·that there is no reason to expect that in the mall

·9· ·generally there was a sudden acceleration in the

10· ·corrosion?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) No, no there

12· ·isn't.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, and as I understand the

14· ·evidence in your report, there is a phenomenon

15· ·recognized by experts in this field, that, in fact,

16· ·as corrosion progresses, the rate of corrosion may,

17· ·in fact, decrease; isn't that right?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) It's possible.

19· ·It depends on the -- how well the corrosion product

20· ·adheres to the surface.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· And I think you address

22· ·this at page 125 of your report.· You refer -- I'll

23· ·wait until you get there but you refer to the

24· ·existence of a corrosion film.

25· · · · · · · · · Just looking at section 6.8 in the

·1· ·second paragraph, you talk about what might

·2· ·contribute to the rate of corrosion and here we're

·3· ·talking about, I think, the actual specific location

·4· ·of the collapse; is that right?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Yes.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But then you talk more

·7· ·generally, about the rate of corrosion and you refer

·8· ·to the role of corrosion films.· Can you explain

·9· ·what a corrosion film is?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) So the

11· ·corrosion product itself can block the ability of

12· ·either oxygen or -- liquids to get to the new -- the

13· ·uncorroded steel, so having that coating, some

14· ·will -- it's common -- or it's practice in civil

15· ·engineering to use weathering steel, so what they'll

16· ·do is they'll have -- the corrosion product will act

17· ·as a barrier for the ingress.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So in the absence of anything to

19· ·cause the corrosion film to be removed, as you

20· ·describe in the last sentence of this paragraph, the

21· ·corrosion will reach a steady, somewhat reduced,

22· ·rate if there is a corrosion film?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) It can.· The

24· ·flow of water itself over the surface could take

25· ·some of the corrosion product from the surface.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·No, fair enough.

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) But it is

·3· ·possible.

·4· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· In a moment of

·5· ·laziness, I once convinced my wife that it was

·6· ·unwise to wash the car in winter, because the

·7· ·accumulation of surface detritus would slow

·8· ·corrosion on the car.· And she accepted that, and

·9· ·I was relieved of the obligation to wash a car for

10· ·the remainder of the winter.

11· · · · · · · · · MR. OUTERBRIDGE:· The personal

12· ·application of the corrosion film concept.

13· · · · · · · · · BY MR. OUTERBRIDGE:

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So I think we're saying the same

15· ·thing.

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Yes.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·As long as the corrosion film is

18· ·still there, the corrosion rate can --

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Can reduce,

20· ·yes.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And I think when you say "can

22· ·reduce", your report says that they tend to do so --

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Yeah.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- to reach a steady, somewhat

25· ·reduced, rate?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Yes.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And so, in the absence of any

·3· ·indication at the mall, of the corrosion films at

·4· ·any particular location being removed, is it your

·5· ·evidence that we can assume that there was a steady,

·6· ·and over time a somewhat reduced rate of corrosion

·7· ·generally across the mall?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Well, that's

·9· ·the -- what you are suggesting there is that we know

10· ·with certainty, whether the corrosion products are

11· ·stable on the surface or not.· When we go for --

12· ·when there is a visual inspection, you can see the

13· ·corrosion products, but without being there while

14· ·the water or anything contacting the surface, may

15· ·remove the corrosion products, at a single point in

16· ·time, we wouldn't know that that's the case or not.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·No, fair enough.· But if you

18· ·draw the assumption in the absence of any evidence

19· ·to the contrary, that the corrosion films were there

20· ·in most locations or as a general manner in the

21· ·locations of the mall.

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) If the

23· ·corrosion product was stable and was well adhered to

24· ·the surface, yes, it would.

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) In fact, if you

·1· ·look at the sentence before that, the point that we

·2· ·make here is that, in general, if all is constant,

·3· ·these corrosion films are present and they kind of

·4· ·tend to level off the rate of corrosion.· With the

·5· ·presence of external factors, we say that such

·6· ·movement in this particular case, may shed some of

·7· ·this, but bringing it more to the linear kind of

·8· ·course of action, or rate of corrosion, so,

·9· ·basically, we're sticking with the absence of any

10· ·certainty to what would be the nominal growth of

11· ·corrosion as linear line of .1mm per year, that's --

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So it may not have been reduced

13· ·but it would be a steady constant rate.

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That's what we

15· ·are saying.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And certainly no rapid

17· ·acceleration?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That's what we

19· ·are saying, yes.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, I'd like to turn back to

21· ·the Trow 1991 report, Exhibit 35.

22· · · · · · · · · Actually sorry, just before we do

23· ·that, Ms. Kuka if we could turn to page 17 of the

24· ·NORR Report.· Sorry about that.

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No problem.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So in -- on page 17 under

·2· ·heading 2.3.8 which is a description of the 1991

·3· ·Trow condition survey, in the second paragraph, you

·4· ·state in the second line that:

·5· · · · · · · · · · "This report" -- referring to

·6· · · · · · · · · the Trow '91 report -- "appears

·7· · · · · · · · · to have been concentrated almost

·8· · · · · · · · · solely on the condition of the

·9· · · · · · · · · precast hollowcore panels."

10· · · · · · · · · I was a little concerned when I read

11· ·that because that is certainly not my read of the

12· ·report and I just wanted to take you to the report

13· ·and see if you will agree with me that perhaps that

14· ·sentence needs some qualification.

15· · · · · · · · · So if we can turn to Exhibit No. 35,

16· ·specifically to page 5, section 6.1 we see here

17· ·a description of the fieldwork that Trow engaged in,

18· ·and I won't go into this in great detail because

19· ·I know people in this room have been through this

20· ·before, but we see the fieldwork involved: visually

21· ·surveying the top and soffit of the roof slab, so

22· ·the top is the concrete overlay, is that right?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Uh-hmm, yes.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And the soffit being the

25· ·underside of the slab?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That's correct.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And then they describe the

·3· ·sounding survey and the coring they were doing, as

·4· ·well as what they describe as a component

·5· ·inspection, and we see under the heading "Visual

·6· ·survey" at the second paragraph, that they say "This

·7· ·phase of the investigation," which is the visual

·8· ·survey of the top and soffit, consisted of mapping

·9· ·various types of deterioration on the complete top

10· ·surface and soffit of the roof slab and pedestrian

11· ·walkways.

12· · · · · · · · · And if we turn to page 9, section 8.3

13· ·we see here a description of Trow's component

14· ·inspection.· And they talk about the components of

15· ·the parking structure, other than the slabs were

16· ·generally in good condition with the following

17· ·exceptions, and they go on to describe spalling

18· ·under some of the steel beams near the wall, surface

19· ·rust on the steel beams, fire proofing gone, ceiling

20· ·panels, et cetera.

21· · · · · · · · · If we go over to the next

22· ·page there's a description of various other

23· ·components that aren't the core slabs that are

24· ·deteriorated in one way or another.

25· · · · · · · · · Do you agree that's a fair

·1· ·description?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Okay.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And then if we look at page 13,

·4· ·section 12.0, the conclusions that Trow draws in its

·5· ·report:· 1, deals with the concrete topping surface;

·6· ·No. 2 deals with the soffit; 3 deals with the

·7· ·expansion joint; 4 deals with the control joints,

·8· ·et cetera.· And as I read the report, Trow's

·9· ·'91 report, rather than focusing almost entirely on

10· ·the hollowcore slabs actually hardly talks about the

11· ·hollowcore slabs at all.· They talk about the

12· ·topping, concrete topping, and they talk about the

13· ·soffit inspection and the component inspection.

14· · · · · · · · · But they don't actually focus on the

15· ·hollowcore slabs.· They do talk about the hollowcore

16· ·slabs but will you agree with me that it's not fair

17· ·to say that the exclusive or nearly -- the dominant

18· ·focus of this report was the hollowcore slabs?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Actually from

20· ·a structural point of view, the topping, if we are

21· ·to view the topping as a wearing course, then the

22· ·topping is of a -- is not a structural component,

23· ·but the topping is a composite part of the

24· ·hollowcore slabs, so when we talk about the

25· ·hollowcore slab, we talk about the hollowcore slab

·1· ·and the topping, and we don't need to make the

·2· ·distinction.

·3· · · · · · · · · So basically the structural component

·4· ·that they focused on was primarily the concrete,

·5· ·which is the hollowcore slab and the topping, and

·6· ·everything that you just described in terms of the

·7· ·soffit and the topping and all of that, all of these

·8· ·are primarily described under the heading of the

·9· ·hollowcore slab.

10· · · · · · · · · We are aware of the fact that there

11· ·was -- and I mentioned -- I mean, we were looking

12· ·for every trace of any reference to steel and we

13· ·have almost literally, and verbatim, included those

14· ·references, so we did not exclude any of the

15· ·references that were made by Trow -- or by others,

16· ·by the way -- for -- as far as the steel is

17· ·concerned.

18· · · · · · · · · But to clarify your point, yes, the

19· ·hollowcore slab refers to the entire concrete system

20· ·that spans between the steel framing, and you would

21· ·agree that 95 per cent of what was in that report

22· ·was on that, in testing, coring, et cetera of the

23· ·hollowcore slab and its topping.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So, if I'm understanding your

25· ·evidence correctly, you are saying that the

·1· ·inspection of the soffit is also, from your

·2· ·perspective, an inspection of the hollowcore slabs?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, yes, when

·4· ·they are looking at the soffit primarily -- I mean,

·5· ·the soffit is the soffit but when you would -- when

·6· ·you are looking at the concrete and you look at the

·7· ·soffit, then you are looking at the soffit of that

·8· ·concrete.

·9· · · · · · · · · If you were to look at the steel, and

10· ·there are references to that -- to the steel, then

11· ·they would be talking about the bottom flange of the

12· ·steel, rather than referring to it as a soffit.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, I think we may have

14· ·a miscommunication on that point.

15· · · · · · · · · I wonder if we could turn, Ms. Kuka,

16· ·to Exhibit No. 1974.

17· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Rather than phrase

18· ·it in that way, would it have been better, and this

19· ·may be part of Mr. Outerbridge's objection, would it

20· ·not have been preferable to have simply said that

21· ·there is little mention of the steel?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.· Yes, that

23· ·is absolutely representing --

24· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· -- (Simultaneous

25· ·speakers - unclear) -- rather than use the

·1· ·expression "core slab".

·2· · · · · · · · · MR. OUTERBRIDGE:· Thank you,

·3· ·Mr. Commissioner.

·4· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· It is just an

·5· ·opinion that I am expressing at this point.

·6· · · · · · · · · MR. OUTERBRIDGE:· No, fair enough.

·7· ·I just have one point to address before I leave

·8· ·this.

·9· · · · · · · · · BY MR. OUTERBRIDGE:

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Exhibit No. 1974 is up on the

11· ·screen -- if you could blow up the bottom right-hand

12· ·corner, Ms. Kuka -- this is drawing 2 from the Trow

13· ·1991 report.· It's titled "Algoma Centre Shopping

14· ·Mall, soffit of a roof parking level and soffit of

15· ·upper lower roof level" and if you look at the

16· ·legend you will see there is a description of the

17· ·various observations that Trow made of water stains,

18· ·stains on the false ceiling, rust stains, drain

19· ·locations, pail locations, metal pans, missing

20· ·fireproofing from steel beams, et cetera.

21· · · · · · · · · And if we pan out to see the whole

22· ·drawing, we see that Trow made observations -- you

23· ·have to -- maybe if we could focus in, sort of on

24· ·the centre of the drawing just to the see some

25· ·examples -- but all of the little squiggles, the Ss

·1· ·are Trow's observations of stains on the ceiling

·2· ·tiles and we see a number of notations of "beam

·3· ·flange," "top and bottom beam flange rusted," "water

·4· ·stains along beam," "no fireproofing noted on some

·5· ·beams in this area."

·6· · · · · · · · · If you see the double helix in a few

·7· ·areas, those are areas where Trow specifically

·8· ·observed no fireproofing on the steel beams.

·9· · · · · · · · · My first question for you is: My

10· ·understanding is that when you were given the Trow

11· ·'91 report, you were not given this drawing?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is correct.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And so when you prepared your

14· ·report, you did not have this drawing?

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is correct.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And my understanding is that in

17· ·the Trow '94 report, there is a similar drawing.

18· ·It's been marked as Exhibit No. 3142 and, in fact,

19· ·it's on the floor there with the colored green and

20· ·pink markings on it, which superimposes the

21· ·observations from '94 onto the observations from

22· ·'91 in terms of Trow's review of the underside of

23· ·the slab.

24· · · · · · · · · And my understanding is you were not

25· ·provided with that drawing either?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) We have seen

·2· ·this drawing, like, a week ago, but we are not aware

·3· ·of this drawing before that.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· So when the report was

·5· ·prepared, and when you were describing what Trow

·6· ·looked at, you didn't have these drawings?

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, we were

·8· ·guided with what was on their report, but I can

·9· ·refer you, if you want, on the report where the

10· ·soffit is described, in the conclusions, if you care

11· ·to see where they, Trow, say:

12· · · · · · · · · · "This will cause deterioration

13· · · · · · · · · of the concrete pre-stressed

14· · · · · · · · · cables, steel beam, sprayed-on

15· · · · · · · · · fireproofing, false ceiling

16· · · · · · · · · tiles and electrical conduits to

17· · · · · · · · · increase."

18· · · · · · · · · They don't even mention steel.· So

19· ·you will be -- if you were in our position, and

20· ·reading the report or if I were a client and reading

21· ·the report, what I'm seeing here is

22· ·a characterization of an ongoing process that Trow

23· ·is saying is ongoing, and if you don't do anything,

24· ·there will be more corrosion in the cables.· There

25· ·will be a loss of fireproofing and there will be

·1· ·false ceiling tiles and electrical conduits damage.

·2· ·It doesn't say steel beams.· If they were -- if our

·3· ·statement about the steel beams not being of prime

·4· ·importance to Trow, they would at least -- in our

·5· ·opinion, the steel beams should have been number 1,

·6· ·but at least it should be down there, with the

·7· ·electrical conduits and the ceiling tiles.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I'm not going to -- I won't get

·9· ·into a big debate with you about this, the

10· ·Commission has heard a fair amount of evidence from

11· ·Algoma, where I took him through the report and

12· ·pointed out to him that --

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, that's

14· ·fine --

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- there was about 40 or so

16· ·references to corrosion of steel of various types

17· ·and I'm not going to take you through all those

18· ·references.

19· · · · · · · · · I appreciate your point.· My point

20· ·was simply that -- the point essentially that the

21· ·Commissioner made that when you say in your report,

22· ·that they were focused almost entirely on the

23· ·hollowcore slabs, that's perhaps, a bit of an over

24· ·statement?

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) And I'm making

·1· ·this statement just to clarify why the statement was

·2· ·made, and how, if one reads the reports, this is the

·3· ·impression that you would come out with.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, we'll have to agree to

·5· ·disagree.· Mr. Caughill, from Algoma --

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That's fine.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- ended up concluding that the

·8· ·'91 report showed him that the rusting was pervasive

·9· ·but we will -- we can -- we don't need to debate

10· ·that.

11· · · · · · · · · The last point then, if I can turn to

12· ·Exhibit No. 410.· So this is Trow's letter -- letter

13· ·of proposal from June 12, 1996, to Algoma Central

14· ·Properties.

15· · · · · · · · · It was a proposal, as it's described,

16· ·to conduct a structural review of the Algo Centre,

17· ·and if we look on page 2, there is a description in

18· ·11 numbered paragraphs of what Trow was proposing to

19· ·do.· Item number 8 involved exposing and measuring

20· ·existing structural members?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Uh-hmm.

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And this is something I think

23· ·that you've been -- you've said in your report and

24· ·you've said in your testimony, is something that you

25· ·believe would have been helpful to do, to actually

·1· ·expose some of the connections that were covered in

·2· ·some way?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, I think

·4· ·this -- I'm not saying that we haven't said that,

·5· ·but this is not relevant in this case.· I think --

·6· ·when you say "exposing and measuring of existing

·7· ·structural members" this refers to -- in our

·8· ·terminology, is to look at members that, for

·9· ·instance, we do not have the as-built drawings or

10· ·existing drawings and we have members that we don't

11· ·know what their sizes are.· This is regardless of

12· ·whether they are deteriorated or not, they would

13· ·just suppose them, measure them and see what is

14· ·their depth, what is their thickness, et cetera.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Fair enough.· And my focus is on

16· ·word "exposing".· "Exposing some of these members,"

17· ·I take it you agree means, making -- you were able

18· ·to view them if they were previously unexposed?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And that's something that you

21· ·concluded was -- would have been helpful in this

22· ·case for the engineers to expose some of these

23· ·unexposed structural members?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) In a different

25· ·context.· In our exposing of members that are in

·1· ·a state of deterioration, where you want to measure

·2· ·the level of deterioration, that's our reference, so

·3· ·I don't want to mix the two.

·4· · · · · · · · · This statement here refers to

·5· ·something else.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, in item number 9, Trow

·7· ·proposes that they engage in spot checking of the

·8· ·structural steel connections, including welding

·9· ·inspections and testing of the bolts and, again,

10· ·that's something -- the inspection of the structural

11· ·steel connections is precisely what you're saying

12· ·would have been beneficial at the mall?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Again, not

14· ·really.· That's a different kind of --

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Sorry, you're not saying that

16· ·inspecting the structural steel connections would

17· ·have been ...

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, no, I'm

19· ·saying that -- I'm saying -- and I appreciate that

20· ·we are talking from an engineering perspective so if

21· ·you bear with me, I will explain to you: This letter

22· ·was an offer that Trow wanted to propose to the

23· ·owner, as a result of the loss of license of the

24· ·designer of the mall, and as a result, they wanted

25· ·to do a due diligence of checking whether the

·1· ·building was designed and built to the proper

·2· ·standard.

·3· · · · · · · · · They got an offer from Trow, another

·4· ·offer from Meyer -- Meyer actually won that part of

·5· ·the service and conducted that service.

·6· · · · · · · · · Trow are offering their services,

·7· ·they have -- they are not referring, in this letter

·8· ·to anything that we are discussing in this forum, in

·9· ·terms of the deterioration of the structure.

10· · · · · · · · · The emphasis here is on the -- is on

11· ·the design and so, where it says "Connections" if

12· ·you see here, they were talking about checking the

13· ·welds.· Checking the welds, whether the welds were

14· ·executed in a proper way or not.· Torque, torquing

15· ·the bolts, to check if the bolts were executed

16· ·properly.· And that's all very good, and we -- it

17· ·would have been great if Trow would have done this,

18· ·and perhaps if they did, they would have found some

19· ·of the -- if there was any progress of corrosion,

20· ·but that's not what they were offering.· That is not

21· ·what is stated here.

22· · · · · · · · · So, we're not saying that they did

23· ·anything wrong, but we're not taking this point,

24· ·this statement to say that they had checked or had

25· ·advocated checking connections for corrosion.

·1· ·That's the only statement that I'm making here.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I have to say, I'm a little

·3· ·puzzled by your answer.· If you look at section 10,

·4· ·item 10.

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Trow is specifically proposing

·7· ·a review to identify deteriorated structural

·8· ·components.

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, and that is

10· ·not in the context of the connections here.· I am

11· ·just making a statement on the -- what is offered

12· ·here, in terms of checking welds and checking

13· ·connections.

14· · · · · · · · · There is no ambiguity here.· They are

15· ·checking that they have been executed to the proper

16· ·standard.

17· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Then why refer to

18· ·"deteriorated structure" at all?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Deterioration is

20· ·a general statement as to the structure, but not in

21· ·that statement.· So that basically, the connections

22· ·part is a reference, and the wording is clear, that

23· ·the checking of the weld and the connection by

24· ·torquing the bolts and so on, that is what the

25· ·procedure would be if you were to review the

·1· ·construction, even after construction immediately,

·2· ·well before any deterioration had taken place.

·3· · · · · · · · · BY MR. OUTERBRIDGE:

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Maybe I can help you and help

·5· ·clear this up.· My understanding and the evidence

·6· ·that we heard from Algoma and Trow is that what Trow

·7· ·is proposing here was to do the design and as-built

·8· ·construction review that had been asked for.

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Absolutely.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And an inspection for structural

11· ·deterioration.· And that the very reason they

12· ·weren't hired was because Algoma felt that Trow's

13· ·proposed scope of work was too broad and relatedly

14· ·too expensive.

15· · · · · · · · · Mr. Caughill, from Algoma testified

16· ·that he wanted Mr. Meyer, in part, because he was

17· ·going to have a scope that only looked at design and

18· ·as-built construction and the Trow proposal went

19· ·beyond that to looking at deterioration.

20· · · · · · · · · And so, my point was not meant to be

21· ·a controversial one.· I think that the document

22· ·speaks for itself, in terms of Trow proposing to

23· ·look at deteriorated structural components and when

24· ·they talk about structural components they

25· ·specifically refer to connections, welds and bolts,

·1· ·and my point simply for you was, you've had the

·2· ·opportunity, unlike many, to review a large array of

·3· ·the expert reports and other materials in this case,

·4· ·and in your review, did any other engineer or

·5· ·professional consultant recommend to the owner,

·6· ·an inspection for deteriorated welds and

·7· ·deteriorated bolts?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) And I'm making

·9· ·a clear statement.· I cannot but be sincere here,

10· ·this statement here about the connection -- and this

11· ·is not in any way lessening the professionalism of

12· ·Trow -- it is simply saying that this statement here

13· ·is meant to check that the weld has been executed

14· ·properly, and that the bolts had been fastened

15· ·properly.· This is --

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Maybe I can just --

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) This is what

18· ·that statement says, but yes, there is another scope

19· ·that they could be advocating, but the -- Meyer did

20· ·not go into doing any of the checking of the welding

21· ·or bolting, et cetera, not even the issue of

22· ·deterioration.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Fair enough.· So, I understand

24· ·what you're saying.· We have a difference of view on

25· ·the proper interpretation of this letter.· My

·1· ·narrow, last point is simply: Did any other

·2· ·consultant in the history of the mall propose a weld

·3· ·and bolt inspection for deterioration?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) And I'm

·5· ·saying -- and we are saying nobody even, in our --

·6· ·at least as far as the information that we have, we

·7· ·have no record of anybody who is looking at

·8· ·connections and reporting those connections.

·9· ·I don't know who would have proposed anything, but,

10· ·no, I agree with you, there was no record of anybody

11· ·checking the connections.

12· · · · · · · · · MR. OUTERBRIDGE:· Thank you.· Those

13· ·are all my questions.

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Thank you.

15· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Mr. MacRae.

16· · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MACRAE:

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Good morning, gentlemen.· This

18· ·is a new experience for me.· I haven't had

19· ·the opportunity to ask four people questions at the

20· ·same time, so I'll do my best and I hope that you'll

21· ·cut me some slack with respect to how we're going

22· ·back and forth with respect to questions.

23· · · · · · · · · I wanted to start, from the very

24· ·beginning, in that I'm going to suggest that the

25· ·original design, the original architect, the

·1· ·original structural engineer, and the original

·2· ·contractor, who also happened to be the owner, were

·3· ·the cause of this collapse.

·4· · · · · · · · · There was a lot of things that

·5· ·happened in between, there was a lot of things that

·6· ·appeared to have been done or not done, but I'd like

·7· ·to review your report against that backdrop, if

·8· ·I might.

·9· · · · · · · · · If I can take you to the executive

10· ·summary of your report -- if you could bring up v,

11· ·please, Ms. Kuka.· Okay -- it begins, your

12· ·commentary begins the "History of the Waterproofing

13· ·and Leakage" and it states:

14· · · · · · · · · · "Problems started in the mall

15· · · · · · · · · from the design stage where two

16· · · · · · · · · key shortcomings have been

17· · · · · · · · · identified.· The first is the

18· · · · · · · · · placement of a parking lot on

19· · · · · · · · · the roof of the mall without

20· · · · · · · · · providing sound waterproofing.

21· · · · · · · · · The second is the structural

22· · · · · · · · · insufficiency of the HCS."

23· · · · · · · · · The hollowcore slabs.

24· · · · · · · · · But I'd like to deal with the

25· ·waterproofing and the leakage if I might.

·1· · · · · · · · · We can then go on to -- that's what

·2· ·your report says, very clearly, two key

·3· ·shortcomings, and I agree with that report.· And I'd

·4· ·ask you to turn to page 7 --

·5· · · · · · · · · Oh, I'm sorry, vii, Ms. Kuka, and if

·6· ·we might go to the bottom of the page, "Review of

·7· ·Design Documents" and if you could enlarge that for

·8· ·me, please?

·9· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· Is that good?

10· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Yes, thank you.

11· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The last paragraph begins:

13· · · · · · · · · · "The issue of compliance with

14· · · · · · · · · OBC1975 as far as the building

15· · · · · · · · · envelope is concerned was

16· · · · · · · · · equally discussed in the report.

17· · · · · · · · · It was established that the

18· · · · · · · · · prevailing code was not explicit

19· · · · · · · · · in describing the waterproofing

20· · · · · · · · · system that is acceptable for

21· · · · · · · · · an occupied building.· It does

22· · · · · · · · · however require that 'Roofing

23· · · · · · · · · shall be installed so as to,

24· · · · · · · · · shed or drain water

25· · · · · · · · · effectively'. This was clearly

·1· · · · · · · · · not achieved."

·2· · · · · · · · · So my first question is: How can it

·3· ·be that there was compliance, complete compliance,

·4· ·with the design requirements, if, in fact, you have

·5· ·found, as a fact -- it is very clear from the

·6· ·evidence that's been at this Commission -- that the

·7· ·requirement to install roofing, so as to shed or

·8· ·drain water effectively, was clearly not achieved.

·9· ·How could there be compliance?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) May I defer to

11· ·the architect to respond to that?

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Sure.

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The issue of

14· ·compliance would have been one achieved at the

15· ·design stage of the construction.· So when these

16· ·documents were submitted for building permit, that

17· ·would have been the time of review for the Ontario

18· ·Building Code.

19· · · · · · · · · At that time one would assume that

20· ·the documents we've seen would have indicated

21· ·a waterproofing sealer system installed over the

22· ·concrete topping.· There was an architect that

23· ·submitted these drawings.· They have been sealed by

24· ·an architect.· In addition, the owner is

25· ·an engineer.· The system would have assumed to have

·1· ·been, for the purposes of compliance with the code,

·2· ·designed, specified and deemed acceptable for this

·3· ·type of application.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Who would be making those

·5· ·assumptions, Mr. Hughes?· Who would be making those

·6· ·assumptions?

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Well, the City of

·8· ·Elliot Lake's building inspectors or their review

·9· ·personnel on the staff would have reviewed the

10· ·documents for compliance.· But that does not

11· ·alleviate the owners and architects -- excuse me,

12· ·the engineers and architects from submitting

13· ·documents that are, in effect, compliant with the

14· ·OBCA.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And you gave evidence yesterday

16· ·and I'll turn to it shortly, with respect to the

17· ·inability of the roof to properly shed water because

18· ·of the design with the roof drains and the design of

19· ·the sloping.

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Several

21· ·characteristics were improper and inadequate for

22· ·shedding that water, yes.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· Those were inadequate

24· ·characteristics that were involved in the design,

25· ·were they not?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) If the material

·2· ·known as the waterproofing sealer from the

·3· ·documents, did, in fact, act as a waterproof

·4· ·membrane, I have no reason to believe that the water

·5· ·would not have moved towards the drains and been

·6· ·evacuated properly.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But you agree with me that there

·8· ·is only two details that you pointed to, with

·9· ·respect?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That is correct.

11· ·The number of details surrounding the waterproofing

12· ·is, in my estimation, slightly light.· However --

13· ·and I state this in the report -- the entire

14· ·reliance is upon this waterproofing sealer material

15· ·to perform its duties.· With the absence of that

16· ·material doing so, you are not going to be shedding

17· ·or draining water effectively.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, you would agree with me

19· ·though, would you not, that there is no detail on

20· ·any of the drawings that sets out how that is to be

21· ·accomplished?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Well, the

23· ·presence -- the noting -- the notation and

24· ·indication of that waterproofing sealer material on

25· ·several details, although admittedly not all of

·1· ·them, would imply that this material was supposed to

·2· ·be installed on the roof continuously.· That seems

·3· ·clear from what I've seen.

·4· · · · · · · · · I would say there's some question

·5· ·about the adequacy of some of the detailing,

·6· ·especially around the termination of this

·7· ·waterproofing sealer material, if we understand it

·8· ·to be a membrane type material, things that I would

·9· ·question.· And the lack of roof drain details is,

10· ·I would say, questionable, but not critical, in the

11· ·performance of the roof.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Except that, I would suggest to

13· ·you that it was very critical, because it failed.

14· ·It didn't -- there is no indication that this

15· ·building was ever watertight and, in fact, there is

16· ·every indication that it wasn't.

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That is based

18· ·entirely upon the built condition, not upon the

19· ·design.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But when you take a look at the

21· ·design, isn't it the responsibility of either the

22· ·architect or the structural engineer to deal with

23· ·issues of proper drainage on a roof?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) In this case it

25· ·would be the role of the architect to do that.· As

·1· ·we've seen, there was some play also from the owner

·2· ·of the project.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But the owner of the project --

·4· ·you mean by them being involved, that he was

·5· ·an engineer --

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Correct.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- is it that what you're

·8· ·talking about?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That's correct.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So does that require you to give

11· ·that engineer the benefit of the doubt

12· ·professionally or in your review?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No.· In fact, in my

14· ·estimation, the selection of that waterproofing

15· ·system should have fallen within --

16· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Sorry, sir, I'm

17· ·having a lot of trouble hearing you.

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) In my estimation,

19· ·the selection of that waterproofing system should

20· ·have fallen within the realm of the architect's

21· ·responsibilities and should not have been placed

22· ·upon the owner.

23· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So, at what stage do we start to

25· ·cross the line where the design doesn't comply with

·1· ·the OBC?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Well, that's

·3· ·an interesting question.· I'm not sure there is

·4· ·a clear answer for it.

·5· · · · · · · · · As I said, when the documents are

·6· ·submitted, it is a -- it is taken to be compliant

·7· ·with the OBC.· The reliance is upon the presence of

·8· ·this waterproofing sealer material to perform its

·9· ·duties, per Code requirements.· There is -- there is

10· ·no indication that I've seen, that Mr. Keywan, in

11· ·fact, was unaware that this material would not do

12· ·that.· So I think there's -- I think there was some

13· ·questions about whether or not that responsibility

14· ·should have been transferred over to Mr. Hirt as the

15· ·owner and whether it was appropriate for him to be

16· ·selecting a waterproofing system for the roof.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, I would like to deal with

18· ·some of those questions, if you don't mind.

19· · · · · · · · · My point is that there's been, we're

20· ·close to 54 or 55 days into this Commission, dealing

21· ·with what happened at this location and it just

22· ·appears to me that in your report, the original

23· ·designers, the architect, the structural steel

24· ·engineer, get what is -- the best term I can come up

25· ·with is a free skate with respect to what they did.

·1· ·So when you say there are questions, there was

·2· ·a transfer of responsibility, are you suggesting

·3· ·from the architect to the owner, with respect to the

·4· ·selection of the waterproofing system?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That has only come

·6· ·up by way of this Commission.· The documents we had

·7· ·in hand, at the time of the review made no mention

·8· ·of that whatsoever.

·9· · · · · · · · · I can only go on what was in front of

10· ·us at the time of the review, during the report, and

11· ·those documents indicated that there was

12· ·a waterproofing sealer system that was drawn and

13· ·indicated by the design architect.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· And in fairness to

15· ·you, your evidence is it barely shows that, it is

16· ·not evident on many drawings.

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) In terms of the

18· ·compliance?

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·In terms of the water sealant,

20· ·the membrane?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) As I've noted

22· ·before, that the drawings are not entirely

23· ·consistent with the indication of that material, but

24· ·there is, I would say, enough details that do

25· ·indicate that it's adequately covered but barely.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But barely?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Barely.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Then I wonder, Ms. Kuka, if

·4· ·I might take you to an exhibit, something that you

·5· ·may not have had in your review, Exhibit No. 14

·6· ·which is the Peterson proposal.

·7· · · · · · · · · Have you seen that?· Did you see --

·8· ·I'll let it come up first and we'll take a look at

·9· ·it, Mr. Hughes.

10· · · · · · · · · This is the covering page of the

11· ·proposal and it's a proposal from Harry S Peterson

12· ·Company, sealant engineers and -- of interest,

13· ·during the course of the Commission we heard

14· ·evidence from the author of this report that, in

15· ·fact, they were not sealant engineers and they

16· ·removed that from future proposals.

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Umm...

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Have you ever heard of a sealant

19· ·engineer?

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Perhaps one of the

21· ·engineers could better address that.· I have not but

22· ·... I know the term "engineer" gets applied to

23· ·a very large array of specialties so ...

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Is there --

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, I have never

·1· ·heard of this one.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I would assume that there would

·3· ·be engineers who may be specialized in sealants but

·4· ·a sealant engineer -- there is no specialization?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Are you talking

·6· ·about the manufacturing of sealants?· I mean, there

·7· ·could be a chemical engineer who is specialized in

·8· ·the manufacturing of sealant, but in the application

·9· ·of it --

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Sure.

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) -- and again,

12· ·this may or may not be the case.· I have not seen

13· ·a classification of a person beyond a chemical

14· ·engineer, to become a specific sealant engineer.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· Thank you,

16· ·Mr. Monroe's evidence was that they removed that.

17· · · · · · · · · Have you seen this before?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I believe I have,

19· ·yes.· I might not have seen the cover page but yes,

20· ·I believe I have seen the HSP documents.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· If I might take you then

22· ·to page 3.

23· · · · · · · · · Could you back up one page, please?

24· ·Oh, that's the page.· Could you blow up "Crack

25· ·control."

·1· · · · · · · · · Now, before I ask you questions about

·2· ·this, if this was the proposal that was received by

·3· ·the owner, and subsequently used -- and the evidence

·4· ·is that it was used, would these documents form part

·5· ·of the design documents?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No, they would not.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And why is that?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) This would be

·9· ·a document submitted by a material supplier to the

10· ·project.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) It's entirely

13· ·normal for engineers and architects to meet with

14· ·suppliers during the design stage of a -- documents.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) But this document,

17· ·in itself, would not have appeared in the set of

18· ·documents that made up the entire package of

19· ·construction drawings and specifications.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, when you talk about

21· ·a review, you had said that -- you used the term

22· ·"take" and it would be taken by the City of

23· ·Elliot Lake by way of example, that there would have

24· ·been a membrane put on the roof.· If they asked any

25· ·questions, what would normally happen in the course

·1· ·of that exchange, if it wasn't taken and there were

·2· ·questions?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) If there was a

·4· ·question about what that membrane actually consisted

·5· ·of --

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) -- by any reviewing

·8· ·body, the design team would have had to turn most

·9· ·likely to the specifications which would have

10· ·indicated either a specific supplier, in this case,

11· ·HSP, as we understand, or any number of suppliers

12· ·that supplied a similar type of material based on

13· ·its performance or material characteristics.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· Thank you.· So this

15· ·document, as we move into it, the crack control, and

16· ·this is a question that may be answered by every

17· ·member, except yourself, maybe, Mr. Dinovitzer, is

18· ·that -- have I pronounced your name properly?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Yes.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And if you can, I would welcome

21· ·your involvement as well too.

22· · · · · · · · · If we read through this and I believe

23· ·it's worth reading through:

24· · · · · · · · · · "The cracking patterns of

25· · · · · · · · · toppings over precast structural

·1· · · · · · · · · members are predictable to us

·2· · · · · · · · · and can be controlled with

·3· · · · · · · · · 99 per cent accuracy by tooling

·4· · · · · · · · · joints in the concrete topping

·5· · · · · · · · · over the ends of the hollowcore

·6· · · · · · · · · slabs and every third grout key

·7· · · · · · · · · in a longitudinal direction."

·8· · · · · · · · · Do you believe that?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) We comment on

10· ·that in our report and we say that this is not the

11· ·case, and that cracking, in fact, as has been

12· ·demonstrated, they went with every third but then

13· ·eventually had to seal every line of -- between two

14· ·panels, so basically they added threefold of these

15· ·joints that had imposed themselves because of the

16· ·cracking that occurred in the life of the structure.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And, Dr. Ghods, particularly,

18· ·would you agree with me that it's almost impossible

19· ·to accurately predict where concrete will crack on

20· ·a regular basis?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) It is very hard to

22· ·predict it, yes, to predict the location of the

23· ·crack.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·It's very hard -- I am

25· ·suggesting that it is very close to impossible to

·1· ·predict exactly where concrete is going to crack.

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) It depends on the

·3· ·situation.· For example, if you have a flexure

·4· ·member you can predict the vicinity of the crack,

·5· ·but in general, you know, that superstructure is

·6· ·quite -- (Simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And even then your evidence is

·8· ·that you can predict it within the vicinity.

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But saying it is going to fall

11· ·on this particular spot on this particular day.

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) No.· The reason is

13· ·that because concrete is not homogenous material, so

14· ·the properties of concrete change slightly from

15· ·location to location and it is really -- it is not

16· ·like a steel, it is not homogenous material.

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Let me clarify

18· ·this.· I mean, what they should be saying is not

19· ·that they would be predicting where the cracks are

20· ·to incur, they would be imposing where the cracks

21· ·are to occur.· So if you create a joint, then you

22· ·force the crack to occur at that location, so it is

23· ·not an issue of prediction.

24· · · · · · · · · They underestimated the cracking in

25· ·between the joints that they had proposed, so had

·1· ·they imposed, in fact, additional jointing in

·2· ·between, then they would have been more capable of

·3· ·predicting and -- not predicting, dictating

·4· ·actually, where the movement is going to take place.

·5· ·It is not a crack anymore, it is a joint.

·6· · · · · · · · · The problem then is that they would

·7· ·have to apply sealants to those joints and then

·8· ·these sealants would have to be effective in such

·9· ·an enormous amount of jointing that is taking place,

10· ·in the mall and the problem with that is that when

11· ·you have severe temperature variations, where you

12· ·have very large gradient -- temperature gradients

13· ·and in the very cold winter times, concrete would

14· ·tend to shrink, the joints would tend to open.· If

15· ·the sealant was flexible enough and was applied

16· ·properly, then it would seal.

17· · · · · · · · · If that happens in 95 per cent of the

18· ·times, then you have 5 per cent of the roof which is

19· ·infiltrating the water which is a huge amount, when

20· ·you are talking about this large number of joints.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you very much,

22· ·Dr. Saffarini.

23· · · · · · · · · As I go through, you'll see that

24· ·there was evidence before this Commission that the

25· ·concrete and the sealants were applied in October

·1· ·and November and December in open air conditions

·2· ·with snow being removed from the locations to

·3· ·install, to try and install the sealants, with

·4· ·cold -- with the concrete being poured in freezing

·5· ·temperatures.

·6· · · · · · · · · There was evidence before this

·7· ·Commission that the snow came in October of the year

·8· ·that this was constructed, and didn't leave.

·9· · · · · · · · · I'll deal with that but your

10· ·information is very helpful.· But my point is that

11· ·they didn't say that.· This is what they said to the

12· ·builder and to the owner at that time.· And it's

13· ·just simply not accurate.

14· · · · · · · · · That's my submission to you or

15· ·rather, my suggestion to you.· It's not accurate, is

16· ·it?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I think we

18· ·mentioned that clearly, specifically in the report

19· ·so ...

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.· All right.· If I might go

21· ·on then, to drainage at page 6, the next page,

22· ·please?

23· · · · · · · · · Could we go on, I believe it's page 6

24· ·of the -- well, I can -- I can deal with the

25· ·expansion jointing while we're at that page.· It

·1· ·says:

·2· · · · · · · · · · "Ineffectual expansion joint

·3· · · · · · · · · sealing is the most common of

·4· · · · · · · · · all waterproofing problems in

·5· · · · · · · · · parking structures."

·6· · · · · · · · · Would you agree with that statement?

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I would -- I would

·8· ·agree with that statement, yes.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, they talk, in that section

10· ·about why it's important to use their materials and

11· ·so on and so forth, but if you are trying to

12· ·install, from your experience, Mr. Hughes, if you

13· ·are trying to install an expansion joint by removing

14· ·snow from concrete areas, by trying to dry wet

15· ·concrete with Tiger torches in freezing

16· ·temperatures; by tenting -- there was evidence from

17· ·Mr. Jasskelainen that they tented certain areas.

18· ·When the snow came, they would remove the snow.

19· · · · · · · · · Does that sound like it's a good

20· ·start to installing expansion joints?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Most likely not.

22· ·The more control you can exert over a construction

23· ·site, the better the results will be.· And in

24· ·a renovation or a restoration type of work that

25· ·becomes much more of a challenge because you are

·1· ·working with existing materials which have to be

·2· ·demolished and repaired and adhered to so ...

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But in this case, they were

·4· ·working with new construction.

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) You are talking

·6· ·about installation of the original joint?

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The original joint, yes.

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·It was installed during that --

10· ·the evidence before the Commission, I can read it to

11· ·you, but the evidence of the installer was that as

12· ·late as December they were working on expansion

13· ·joints in the snow.

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Well, concrete can

15· ·be poured in cold weather but you need to exert some

16· ·control over it for heating and loss of -- during

17· ·the curing process.· It can be done but it is

18· ·challenging.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·It is challenging because you

20· ·would have to provide heat; is that correct?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) You have to control

22· ·the temperature -- the rate at which the concrete

23· ·cures.· That is a very critical element in the

24· ·process.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And that has to be --

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Controlled.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·That has to be controlled over

·3· ·a long period of time, am I not correct?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Well, it has to

·5· ·reach its strength after -- 45 days?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) But, I mean, at

·7· ·the end of the day, we tested and others tested the

·8· ·topping that you are referring to, and we found no

·9· ·signs of this being of substandard --

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Oh, I appreciate that, I'm not

11· ·talking about the topping.

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I am just

13· ·commenting so we are not speculating on the quality

14· ·of the concrete.· The concrete was tested and it was

15· ·of a -- (Simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I have some questions about

17· ·that, Dr. Saffarini --

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- but my point is that, going

20· ·back to the beginning, at the beginning of this

21· ·construction, we've heard evidence from the actual

22· ·installer, who was responsible for the installing of

23· ·the expansion joints and some of the caulking, that

24· ·he wouldn't have done it, if he wasn't forced to do

25· ·it.

·1· · · · · · · · · So, moving on, if I can deal with

·2· ·drainage, I believe it's at page 6 of this report.

·3· · · · · · · · · Yes.· Thank you.

·4· · · · · · · · · Now, this is getting back to your

·5· ·point, Mr. Hughes, that drainage -- it states:

·6· · · · · · · · · · "Drainage patterns should be

·7· · · · · · · · · developed to slope to drains

·8· · · · · · · · · with falls of 1 per cent or

·9· · · · · · · · · greater."

10· · · · · · · · · Is that accurate?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That's what the

12· ·statement says.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·No, my question is: Is that

14· ·an accurate statement about how drainage patterns

15· ·should --

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I would consider

17· ·that to be a fair practice.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· And:

19· · · · · · · · · · "Expansion joints should be at

20· · · · · · · · · high points."

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Again, yes, I would

22· ·agree with that.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Except we were talking

24· ·yesterday and I understood some of your evidence to

25· ·be that the problem with the expansion joint being

·1· ·at a high point was that it formed a dam and

·2· ·prevented the flow of material?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No, the expansion

·4· ·joint in question actually was at sort of a mid

·5· ·point in a slope.· It was not at the high point, per

·6· ·se.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So it wasn't at that --

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No, it affected the

·9· ·flow across the expansion joint.· The high point was

10· ·to the west of the expansion joint, if we are

11· ·talking about the expansion joint along gridline F.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.· So the manufacturer is

13· ·suggesting that the expansion joint should be at the

14· ·high point.· Your evidence is that the expansion

15· ·joint was at the low point?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I don't know, from

17· ·this letter if HSP was aware of the design of the

18· ·mall or how its layout was being proposed.· I would

19· ·-- I would -- this type of a letter seems to me to

20· ·speak in general terms about the general design of

21· ·systems in terms of waterproofing and location of

22· ·expansion joints.

23· · · · · · · · · I can't say definitively if, when

24· ·this letter was written, HSP had a layout of the

25· ·mall roof in front of them and they were forming

·1· ·a scope of work based on that.· In other words, if

·2· ·I could restate.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Sure.

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I don't know if

·5· ·I would take that sentence to be a direction from

·6· ·HSP to the designers to locate the joints in certain

·7· ·locations.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, that's an -- I thank you

·9· ·for that answer because it moves into the next area.

10· ·I was going to ask you, how would communication be

11· ·expected to be achieved between a supplier, such as

12· ·Peterson, and the contractor who was the owner, and

13· ·the architect and structural designer?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The owner was the

15· ·engineer, the architect was a separate entity.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.· I'm sorry if I misstated

17· ·that.

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The -- if HSP had

19· ·been brought into the design team and we'll include

20· ·that -- we'll state that the team would have

21· ·included the engineer and the architects as a whole

22· ·group, and owner, I would expect HSP's

23· ·recommendations about how their system be installed

24· ·and detailed -- and that would include location of

25· ·joints, and drains and so forth -- to be built into

·1· ·the documents, the design documents.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And who would be responsible for

·3· ·either sending that information or -- who would be

·4· ·the -- where would the buck stop with respect to

·5· ·getting that information?· Would it be the architect

·6· ·or would it be the supplier?

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Well, the architect

·8· ·and the engineer are the ones that submit drawings

·9· ·for construction and for permit application, so that

10· ·information would be baked into, if you will, the

11· ·construction documents.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, thank you.

13· · · · · · · · · If I can move on then, Ms. Kuka, to

14· ·page 12.

15· · · · · · · · · This is, we're told -- have you seen

16· ·this before?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·This is the design, that

19· ·ultimately was used on the roof.· We were told that

20· ·by Mr. Monroe when he appeared here.

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That is not what

22· ·was built.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I'm sorry, it's the next page.

24· ·Thank you.· Thank you for that.· This is the design.

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That's closer, yes.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· Thank you.· So, this

·2· ·design calls for a detailing on every third joint

·3· ·over top of precast.· It also requires that there be

·4· ·a -- materials applied to the joints of the precast

·5· ·on every third joint, under the topping; correct?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That is my

·7· ·understanding of HSP's proposal, yes.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· Can you provide me

·9· ·your opinion as an architect, with respect to the

10· ·quality of this proposal?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) To act as

12· ·a waterproofing system?

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That would not be

15· ·a system that I would find to be acceptable, in my

16· ·opinion.· Certainly not in today's standards and in

17· ·the standards at play in 1979, at the design time.

18· ·It, again, it would -- it barely meets any kind of

19· ·standard in that it, again, relies upon this

20· ·waterproofing sealer at the top surface to act

21· ·effectively.

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You used the term "barely meets

23· ·any standards"; how does it meet a standard?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Well, we're back to

25· ·the OBC at this point.· The roof is supposed to be

·1· ·designed to shed and drain water effectively.· It

·2· ·can do that if it has a membrane on top of it.· HSP

·3· ·was holding out that, and as we've seen in this

·4· ·letter, that a combination of their sealer and

·5· ·proper curing of the concrete will act as

·6· ·a waterproof surface.· They backed it up by

·7· ·supplying these strips at every third panel and

·8· ·expansion joints of their own design.

·9· · · · · · · · · So, in terms of, if we took them at

10· ·their word, HSP's system was supposed to offer

11· ·a watertight solution.· And that would have met the

12· ·intent of the Code.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Is it the responsibility of the

14· ·architect to take suppliers at their word or is --

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Well, I'm not sure

16· ·I would call it a responsibility per se.· I mean,

17· ·we -- there are people we deal with in the industry

18· ·that supply these kinds of systems are usually

19· ·somewhat expert in their field.· They have a track

20· ·record of built projects, they have a history and

21· ·they have enough engineers and professionals on

22· ·staff to make sure that these systems work as

23· ·proposed.

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) They gave

25· ·a warranty, a five year warranty.· Now, once the

·1· ·warranty expired and the -- they -- HSP had no

·2· ·obligation towards the owner or the owner did not

·3· ·pursue any further obligation or enforcement, it

·4· ·becomes the responsibility of whoever owns this

·5· ·property, I guess, to basically make sure that the

·6· ·system or a new system would be an effective system

·7· ·that is installed or that is there.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I appreciate that answer,

·9· ·Dr. Saffarini.· My question though is, going back to

10· ·the time of the design, these responsibilities as a

11· ·result of the failure of this design, those

12· ·responsibilities carried on for over 30 years.

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But I'm asking specifically

15· ·about the time of the design when the engineer, when

16· ·the architect were working together to put this

17· ·project together.· Would it surprise you,

18· ·Dr. Saffarini, that Mr. Keywan gave evidence that as

19· ·the architect, he never came to Elliot Lake?· He

20· ·never visited the site.· He never reviewed the site.

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, we've heard

22· ·this --

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes, it surprises

24· ·me quite a lot.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Quite a lot?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·This was designed by

·3· ·an architect who -- and he kept his track record

·4· ·straight, he didn't come here to testify, he

·5· ·testified from Toronto.

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes, I saw part of

·7· ·his testimony.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.· And -- I'm sorry, just one

·9· ·minute.· With the responsibility, what would you

10· ·anticipate an architect should do with respect to

11· ·visiting the site?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Current

13· ·requirements --

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) -- are very clear

16· ·that the Architect of Record is to make periodic

17· ·site visits and file reports based on observations.

18· ·That was not a requirement at the time of

19· ·construction.· It -- it simply didn't -- it was not

20· ·part of the prevailing law at the time.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Would it surprise you to hear

22· ·that there was evidence from the structural engineer

23· ·as well too, that he only visited the site twice?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That would be

25· ·Mr. Hirt?

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·No, Mr. --

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Mr. Kadlec.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Mr. Kadlec.

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Again, I would

·5· ·suspect that the engineers would operate in a fairly

·6· ·similar way, that site inspection routine would have

·7· ·been a fairly common practice.

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) And necessary.

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) And necessary.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And necessary, yes.

11· · · · · · · · · And in fact -- I'll jump ahead for

12· ·a minute before we come back to this drawing, but

13· ·would it surprise you to know that without visiting

14· ·the site and -- for Mr. Keywan -- and with only two

15· ·site visits by Mr. Kadlec, that both individuals

16· ·signed a Certificate of Substantial Completion based

17· ·upon information they received from the owner's

18· ·representative?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes, I'm aware from

20· ·previous testimony that this has occurred.· I do

21· ·find that a little surprising.· However, there are

22· ·strict limits about what is required in terms of

23· ·site visits by the architect, and unfortunately, at

24· ·the time, there was no language indicating that

25· ·visiting the site was a requirement.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·There was no language that

·2· ·visiting the site was a requirement to complete and

·3· ·sign and seal a Certificate of Substantial

·4· ·Completion?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) If you sign

·6· ·a Certificate of Substantial Completion you are

·7· ·responsible for that building.· It indicates that

·8· ·you have executed your duties to the letter of the

·9· ·Act.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And you are surprised that that

11· ·could be done without, at least one visit to

12· ·Elliot Lake?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) In my opinion, that

14· ·is a fairly surprising statement, yes.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I'm going back to the drawing

16· ·that's before us, if I could go back one-page,

17· ·Ms. Kuka.

18· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· I have a couple of

19· ·questions with respect to this, Mr. Commissioner and

20· ·then it may be an appropriate time to take a break.

21· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Okay.

22· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The drawing, you immediately

24· ·indicated to me that I had the wrong drawing up and

25· ·I would assume that was because you saw the

·1· ·insulation on top of the core slabs; is that

·2· ·correct?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The insulation --

·4· ·yes, that's the tell-tale.· Also there appears to be

·5· ·a -- what's indicated as item number 2 there, some

·6· ·membrane type, continuous-looking membrane material

·7· ·over top of the core slab.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, that was -- that was what

·9· ·the original design called for, was insulation on

10· ·top of the core slab to ensure that the core slab

11· ·was a component of the controlled environment of the

12· ·building envelope; am I correct?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Original designed

14· ·by who?

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The architect.· Where the

16· ·insulation -- the insulation was to be on top.

17· ·There is a detail that shows that the insulation --

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That detail appears

19· ·on the structural drawings.· It does not appear on

20· ·any architectural drawing.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· So that confuses me.

22· ·So what does that mean?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Well, there was --

24· ·there was some confusion between, I would assume,

25· ·Mr. Kadlec and Mr. Keywan as to the presence of --

·1· ·whether or not this was a bonded topping or whether

·2· ·it was a layer of insulation between the precast and

·3· ·the concrete topping.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And the fact that that appeared

·5· ·on the structural drawing, the detail with respect

·6· ·to the insulation on top of the core slab --

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- would suggest that the

·9· ·structural engineer was aware that the precast

10· ·hollowcore slabs were to be within the building

11· ·envelope and the insulation was to be on top?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I could only

13· ·speculate as to what his understanding was.· It

14· ·indicates, because it is in the same document set,

15· ·that there was some confusion between the team

16· ·members as to what the intent was.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· Well, if we can

18· ·leave it at that, but move to the question of -- you

19· ·say there is confusion; whose responsibility would

20· ·it have been to eliminate that confusion?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) In this case, that

22· ·would have been Mr. Keywan's responsibility.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And the fact that the only --

24· ·that it appears on the structural -- is it

25· ·reasonable to assume that the fact that the detail,

·1· ·with the insulation on top of the core slab appears

·2· ·on the structural drawing, that the structural

·3· ·engineer proceeded on that basis?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Proceeded to design

·5· ·his ...

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Design the building with respect

·7· ·to the core slabs and the reinforcing --

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) It is reasonable to

·9· ·assume that the engineer assumed that the topping

10· ·was not bonded to the hollowcore.· That's all I can

11· ·possibly infer from that.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Wouldn't it also make clear

13· ·though that the core slabs were going to be within

14· ·the building envelope and would be part of the

15· ·heated area?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes, but the

17· ·structural drawings are limited to showing

18· ·structural components or those components that

19· ·directly affect the structure.

20· · · · · · · · · I would have to turn to the

21· ·architectural drawings to get a clearer picture of

22· ·how the building envelope was expected to perform.

23· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· All right.· That would

24· ·be a good time, Mr. Commissioner.

25· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Thank you, we'll

·1· ·break for 20 minutes.

·2· · · · · · · · · --- RECESS AT 10:37 A.M.

·3· · · · · · · · · --- RESUMED AT 11:00 A.M.

·4· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Thank you.

·5· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Before I leave the issue of the

·7· ·design, the original design, that I suggest is the

·8· ·cause that started all these problems in the first

·9· ·place, I would ask you to turn to page 67 of your

10· ·report.

11· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· And if you would bring

12· ·that up on the screen please, Ms. Kuka, and if you

13· ·could blow up section 4.1.6, the: "Final note on

14· ·building envelope design compliance"?

15· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I'm going to review it -- I know

17· ·that you authored this, but I'm going to review it

18· ·with you.· And to give you a heads-up where I'm

19· ·going, at the end of this I'm going to ask you once

20· ·again why it is your opinion that there was

21· ·compliance with the requirements that the architect

22· ·and the structural engineer had with respect to the

23· ·design of the building.

24· · · · · · · · · And the paragraph begins:

25· · · · · · · · · · "The design of the roof

·1· ·assembly, when taken out of the

·2· ·context of as-built conditions

·3· ·(at time of granting of

·4· ·occupancy) and current

·5· ·conditions, can be said to

·6· ·narrowly meet the requirements

·7· ·of Part 4 of the OBC (1975) but

·8· ·relies entirely upon the

·9· ·"WATERPROOFING SEALER" material.

10· ·Generally, relying on concrete

11· ·sealers entirely to maintain the

12· ·integrity of a building envelope

13· ·is considered poor practice.

14· ·Let alone having the material as

15· ·a horizontal layer guaranteed to

16· ·be covered in water and snow,

17· ·and subjected to vehicular

18· ·traffic.· The lack of roof drain

19· ·detailing is troubling and does

20· ·not speak well of the level of

21· ·care given to the design of the

22· ·roof.· The larger issue is one

23· ·of appropriateness.· Having a

24· ·parking deck act as the roof

25· ·over occupied spaces is a

·1· · · · · · · · · challenging task from a

·2· · · · · · · · · construction detailing point of

·3· · · · · · · · · view and one would be forgiven

·4· · · · · · · · · for second-guessing the wisdom

·5· · · · · · · · · of this choice, but it is not an

·6· · · · · · · · · insurmountable challenge.

·7· · · · · · · · · However, the material choices

·8· · · · · · · · · and assembly details shown do

·9· · · · · · · · · not rise to the level of

10· · · · · · · · · sophistication and durability

11· · · · · · · · · required."· [As read.]

12· · · · · · · · · And if I can stop there for a minute,

13· ·required by what or by whom or what Code?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr.· Hughes) Well, required by

15· ·the -- by the program requirements of the building;

16· ·that is, to be an open-air parking deck subjected to

17· ·various forms of traffic.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So you indicate that the

19· ·material choices and assembly details shown do not

20· ·rise to that level of sophistication?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr.· Hughes) That is evidenced

22· ·by the fact that they were -- failed almost

23· ·immediately.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· How do though get over

25· ·the bar -- that's my question again -- how do they

·1· ·get over the bar of being acceptable under the OBCA

·2· ·at that point in time?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr.· Hughes) Well, the -- the

·4· ·documents submitted were prepared by a registered

·5· ·architect and had consulting engineers on -- in that

·6· ·team.· They were expected to, as a matter of course,

·7· ·have been evaluated and deemed appropriate for their

·8· ·use.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But we've seen so many

10· ·engineering reports during the process of this

11· ·Commission that aren't being given that benefit of

12· ·the doubt.

13· · · · · · · · · So my question is:· Why is the -- why

14· ·are the details and the requirements with respect to

15· ·the original construction of the building being

16· ·given that benefit of the doubt?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr.· Hughes) I'm not sure I can

18· ·answer that.· The architect and the engineers that

19· ·prepared these documents would have had to exercise

20· ·a level of care and -- that would have come through

21· ·in their detailing and selection of materials that

22· ·would have allowed this roof to function properly,

23· ·in its -- in its required duties.· That would have

24· ·been the requirements of the owner and also of the

25· ·Code.

·1· · · · · · · · · At the time of submission for

·2· ·building permit, that is when the review takes place

·3· ·for compliance with Code, and that is -- that is

·4· ·when the bar is passed.

·5· · · · · · · · · After that, if the materials do not

·6· ·perform, it becomes an issue of warranty and

·7· ·maintenance.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· Thank you for that.

·9· · · · · · · · · So your last statement in that

10· ·paragraph, saying:

11· · · · · · · · · · "It is NORR's opinion that a

12· · · · · · · · · duty of care required in the

13· · · · · · · · · design and construction of this

14· · · · · · · · · roof was not exercised."

15· · · · · · · · · How does that -- how does that tie

16· ·into your last explanation, that if there is a duty

17· ·of care in the design, and the design would be

18· ·completed prior to the submission of the documents,

19· ·if it's not exercised -- this will be the last time

20· ·I ask you -- how does it get past the OBC bar?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr.· Hughes) Well, again I'm

22· ·not sure -- we can ask this question many times.

23· ·I'm not sure I have a particularly good answer for

24· ·it.

25· · · · · · · · · It's -- at the time of submission, it

·1· ·is deemed to be acceptable or unacceptable.

·2· · · · · · · · · There are professionals involved in

·3· ·all sides of the equation here and they are assumed

·4· ·to have done their duties and diligence in preparing

·5· ·these documents.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· Thank you.· If I

·7· ·might move on, one of the issues that appeared -- or

·8· ·that I believe has become an issue as a result of

·9· ·the core slabs being part of the exterior of the

10· ·building and subject to freeze-thaw and the

11· ·incredible temperature changes here in Elliot Lake,

12· ·and so I was wondering if could get some assistance

13· ·in understanding how the core slabs work in relation

14· ·to the structural integrity of the building.

15· · · · · · · · · My understanding is that they are a

16· ·component of the structural members of the building;

17· ·are they?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is correct,

19· ·yes.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And is there an expansion and

21· ·contraction under thermal -- a thermal expansion and

22· ·contraction that would be designed into the

23· ·building?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Typically, the

25· ·entire structure is subdivided into substructures

·1· ·that are separated by expansion joints.· This would

·2· ·mean that the steel framing that is supporting the

·3· ·hollowcore slabs, together with the hollowcore slabs

·4· ·and in this particular case -- and the topping as a

·5· ·whole would have had slices that are in between

·6· ·these substructures that basically makes each one of

·7· ·these substructures a structure on its own.

·8· · · · · · · · · So in that sense, these are the major

·9· ·joints and the expansion joints.· So any reference

10· ·to expansion joint has to be limited to -- to those

11· ·joints that are subdividing the -- the entire

12· ·structure.

13· · · · · · · · · Now, I don't know that I would agree

14· ·that the freeze and thaw or the -- the variation in

15· ·temperatures and so on had any role or would have a

16· ·role in the deterioration of the hollowcore slabs,

17· ·per se.· So the hollowcore slabs function, as would

18· ·the steel members, as part of the structure, which,

19· ·if the insulation, as in this case, is done below,

20· ·then the entire structure is -- is subjected to the

21· ·cycle of temperature changes.

22· · · · · · · · · This cycle of temperature changes

23· ·would have an effect on the stresses and forces in

24· ·the -- in the structure, whether it is the steel or

25· ·the -- or the concrete, but that is not something

·1· ·that we considered to be a key or of significance in

·2· ·this particular situation, as in structures commonly

·3· ·go through these cycles.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes, but if I can back you up,

·5· ·then, am I correct that the core slabs would be tied

·6· ·into each supporting structural member by way -- in

·7· ·order to provide lateral support to the top cord of

·8· ·the beam?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.· Yes, we

10· ·have the detail in the steel which has some steel

11· ·plates that project above the flange of the beams,

12· ·and those would be laterally supported by the

13· ·hollowcore slabs.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And the purpose of that lateral

15· ·support would be for?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·For the steel beams to not

17· ·torsionally buckle as they are loaded.· Basically

18· ·that the beam is forced in its ultimate failure, if

19· ·it is to endure forces that are beyond its design,

20· ·to just fail in its own plane, rather than twist out

21· ·of plane.

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And am I correct that that

23· ·lateral support increases the load-bearing capacity

24· ·of a beam substantially?

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) It is -- it does

·1· ·not increase it; it -- it brings it to the required

·2· ·by design capacity.

·3· · · · · · · · · That is, if you remove that -- if

·4· ·that is your question -- if you remove it, there

·5· ·would be a substantially reduced capacity, and the

·6· ·answer would be yes.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.· And my understanding

·8· ·is, though, that the core slabs would be locked into

·9· ·position.

10· · · · · · · · · There is evidence -- and I'll take

11· ·you to it -- with respect to the closing of an

12· ·expansion joint in 1995.

13· · · · · · · · · Are you familiar with that report

14· ·from Mr. Meyer, where they cut the concrete slabs in

15· ·order to bring the -- the expansion -- the core

16· ·slabs closer together?· Are you familiar with that?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I am familiar

18· ·with the -- with the recommendation that -- of

19· ·opening that I guess Meyer had commented on, that he

20· ·had observed more movement than would be

21· ·anticipated, and -- or rather, that the movement is

22· ·larger than the joint that was available, and he had

23· ·suggested widening this, yes.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, the movement was so great,

25· ·so much greater, that it actually closed the

·1· ·expansion joint, and the concrete core slabs were

·2· ·touching each other and causing cracks in the core

·3· ·slabs.· That was his evidence.

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.· And the

·5· ·word "expansion joint" has to be used carefully.

·6· · · · · · · · · I mean, the expansion joints in the

·7· ·building are only three expansion joints, two that

·8· ·are east-west and one that is north-south.

·9· · · · · · · · · The other joints are primary joints

10· ·that are between the abutting members.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So the evidence is that at

14· ·line --

15· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· I wonder if we might

16· ·bring up S4, drawing S4, please, Ms. Kuka.· And if

17· ·we could bring up line 10 and 10X.

18· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·There was evidence before the

20· ·Commission that at line 10 and 10X, which is the

21· ·expansion joint on the southern side of the building

22· ·that runs from west to east, that in the summer of

23· ·1996, I believe, that they had closed entirely, and

24· ·that the core slabs were touching and that they were

25· ·under pressure, and that they had to be cut in order

·1· ·to relieve the pressure that the roof was

·2· ·experiencing as a result of thermal expansion; does

·3· ·that surprise you?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) The fact that

·5· ·the joint was not sufficient in the winter, you are

·6· ·saying?

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·This was in the summer.

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) In the summer,

·9· ·sorry.· In the summer, yes, in the summer that would

10· ·be the logical movement, that the two would expand

11· ·and they would come together.

12· · · · · · · · · They should not be touching.· The

13· ·design should have allowed for sufficient movement

14· ·without the touching.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So I'm suggesting to you,

16· ·Dr. Saffarini, that if we take a look at this

17· ·exhibit, at line 2, which is on the southern side,

18· ·that's a poured wall, poured in place.· Line 2 is

19· ·concrete.· And then down to line 10 is structural

20· ·steel.

21· · · · · · · · · The core slabs would be expanding,

22· ·but they would not be able to expand in the

23· ·direction of line 2, because that's a solid wall.

24· ·They wouldn't be able to move.· The movement would

25· ·start from that area, moving over --

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, no, not at

·2· ·all.· Not at all.

·3· · · · · · · · · In fact, expansion in structures --

·4· ·and we've done quite a bit of research on this, and

·5· ·expansion in structures is almost uninhibited by any

·6· ·form of structure that you can introduce.· The only

·7· ·thing is that if you have a stiff enough structure,

·8· ·it will take more force; if you have a flexible

·9· ·structure, it -- the movement would be a flexible

10· ·movement.

11· · · · · · · · · But the structure certainly -- a wall

12· ·that is, in fact, being -- in this particular

13· ·case -- being pushed in its weaker plane would

14· ·provide no resistance whatsoever to diminishing the

15· ·movement.

16· · · · · · · · · So the movement, in simple words, the

17· ·movement would -- would be equal on -- on both

18· ·sides.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But where is the movement taken

20· ·up, then, Dr. Saffarini?

21· · · · · · · · · If -- we've heard evidence that the

22· ·design, there was a problem with the design because

23· ·the core slabs had to be cut at that expansion joint

24· ·at 10 and 10X.

25· · · · · · · · · So if there is thermal expansion --

·1· ·the reason I'm asking this question is because they

·2· ·made a fundamental change in design and put the

·3· ·insulation underneath the core slabs, and exposed

·4· ·the core slabs to all of this thermal expansion.

·5· · · · · · · · · I'm suggesting that that wasn't part

·6· ·of the original design.

·7· · · · · · · · · So when we go to the expansion, if we

·8· ·take a look at this drawing, if the core slabs begin

·9· ·to expand as a result of the thermal expansion

10· ·occurring on a hot summer day --

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes?

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- they are going to -- they

13· ·cannot move to the south side of the building?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, I just -- I

15· ·just said that, emphatically, they will move to the

16· ·south.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·How would they move to the

18· ·south?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) They simply will

20· ·move.· That -- this is the point, that the

21· ·resistance of a structure to the expansion is not in

22· ·any way close to preventing this expansion from

23· ·happening.

24· · · · · · · · · The expansion will happen to the

25· ·north and will happen to the south.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So would it be your evidence --

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I mean, it --

·3· ·you would need a mountain to -- to stop the

·4· ·expansion of expansion of -- of this slab.

·5· · · · · · · · · It's not -- by just having a wall

·6· ·that is there does not prevent the slab from -- from

·7· ·expanding in all directions, including, in this

·8· ·case, going to the south and going to the north.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So, then, would it be logical,

10· ·from your explanation, to assume that if there was a

11· ·problem at line 10 and 10X, there would have been a

12· ·problem at line 2, as well?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No.· No.· If --

14· ·if the -- if this is -- let me put it to you this

15· ·way.· If this was a building that -- that did not

16· ·have any extension to the north, then the building

17· ·would have -- would, under a temperature cycle that

18· ·increases in summer, would expand, even though it is

19· ·a standalone building.

20· · · · · · · · · In this case, that part of the

21· ·building which is to the south is just exactly the

22· ·same as this standalone building.

23· · · · · · · · · It just happens that we have two

24· ·standalone buildings that both of them are

25· ·expanding, so the gap between them is narrowing at

·1· ·10 and 10X.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· And the gap narrowed so

·3· ·much that they had to cut the core slabs and --

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.· I was a

·5· ·bit surprised by -- by this finding of Meyer, I

·6· ·cannot dispute it, but I -- I was a bit surprised

·7· ·that they would have to do such a drastic action,

·8· ·but...

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Did you review the drawings --

10· ·rather, the pictures that showed the core slabs

11· ·expanding over a period of time?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, and we've

13· ·done, for instance, other studies of far larger

14· ·structures and measured movements, and can tell you

15· ·that -- and in those cases, yes, the structure is a

16· ·roof structure which is a parking structure, which

17· ·is exposed to the cycles of cold and hot

18· ·temperature.

19· · · · · · · · · This is the largest parking structure

20· ·in Canada, in Toronto, Pearson Airport.

21· · · · · · · · · And yes, I know exactly what is --

22· ·you know, what you are referring to in terms of

23· ·these movements.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Are those concrete -- the

25· ·building you are referring to --

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) They are precast

·2· ·concrete.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- they're concrete slabs on top

·4· ·of structural steel?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No.· No.· They

·6· ·are a precast building, an entirely precast

·7· ·building.· It doesn't change the -- the behaviour of

·8· ·the structure as a whole.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·My point is it occurs to me in

10· ·reviewing the material that a change in the core

11· ·slabs from where they're -- whether they're part of

12· ·the building envelope or whether they're not, if

13· ·they're tied into each beam as a result of the

14· ·lateral bracing that they are in or to provide that

15· ·lateral bracing, that if they expand more than the

16· ·design engineer had anticipated they would, that

17· ·they would put the structural steel underneath under

18· ·stress, at various times during the course of the

19· ·year?

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, I would

21· ·disagree with that.

22· · · · · · · · · In fact, the entire thing would be

23· ·expanding, so that at any beam location, the whole

24· ·thing would be shifting.

25· · · · · · · · · The beam with the two precast

·1· ·elements that are supported by it would all be

·2· ·shifting to wherever the thermal movement would will

·3· ·it to.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Then I appreciate that.· That

·5· ·was the point I was making, that with the thermal --

·6· ·with the thermal movement, the structural steel

·7· ·beneath that would be required to move in order to

·8· ·accommodate that --

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Absolutely.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- thermal movement?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Absolutely.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· And in the event of

13· ·extensive thermal movement because of the

14· ·environment that we have here, the movement of the

15· ·structural steel would have to be -- it would be --

16· ·it would pair itself up with the concrete core

17· ·slabs?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you very much.· I'm sorry,

20· ·that's -- I didn't understand you to be saying that.

21· ·Thank you very much.

22· · · · · · · · · So I'd like to talk, then, about

23· ·deflection, with respect to deflection of the beams

24· ·in the area of collapse and in the mall generally.

25· · · · · · · · · And you've reviewed the drawings and

·1· ·specifications and I was -- were you able to

·2· ·determine if the architect or the engineer did, in

·3· ·fact, design for any limit of deflection?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) They would have.

·5· ·Are you talking about the -- the core slabs or are

·6· ·you talking about the -- the steel?

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I was talking about the steel

·8· ·first, and then I was going to ask the next

·9· ·question --

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yeah, and I'm --

11· ·yes.· In both cases, there would have been a limit

12· ·for the design for the -- for the steel, and the

13· ·limit for the design of the hollowcore slab.

14· · · · · · · · · We did not focus on that because we

15· ·feel that this is irrelevant in this particular

16· ·case, but I am willing to address any of your

17· ·questions on it.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·My question would be --

19· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· If we could move up the

20· ·section a bit, please, so I could see the bottom?

21· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·In the area that collapsed, the

23· ·beam that actually collapsed, did you do any

24· ·calculation to determine what the deflection would

25· ·be?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, we have not.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I believe that

·4· ·we, at some point, did, but I don't recollect it and

·5· ·we have not recorded that in our report, but --

·6· ·yeah.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You haven't reported it in

·8· ·your --

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) The deflection.

10· ·The deflection, the amount of deflection.· I believe

11· ·that -- that when we were doing the first due

12· ·diligence on the design, we -- we would have,

13· ·definitely, because we would have run the numbers

14· ·and this would have been a part of that computer

15· ·run, and there would have been the deflection values

16· ·and so on, but as I said, we did he not report the

17· ·deflection values because deflection falls under

18· ·serviceability.

19· · · · · · · · · When you are checking failure,

20· ·serviceability is no longer an issue of -- of

21· ·relevance or concern.

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·With those -- do you have

23· ·separate reports that you completed, then?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·They would be field notes?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, we just --

·2· ·computer runs that would be -- what would be the

·3· ·deflection, what would be the capacity of this beam,

·4· ·and that would entail the entire scope of -- we

·5· ·checked flexure, we checked shear, we checked

·6· ·everything in the...

·7· · · · · · · · · But as I said, the actual deflection

·8· ·of the beam is absolutely of no impact on

·9· ·ascertaining the capacity for the beam to fail.

10· · · · · · · · · That would be, for instance, if we

11· ·had a ceiling that's attached to the beam and this

12· ·ceiling cracked, and we were looking at the amount

13· ·of cracking of this nonstructural ceiling, we would

14· ·be concerned then about the deflection.

15· · · · · · · · · If the beam was being used as a

16· ·floor, and the floor, as you moved on it, had

17· ·vibrations or whatever, then you would be looking

18· ·at -- at this, but the -- then as far as the

19· ·capacity, in terms of failure, the deflection is --

20· ·is a secondary.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So it's your evidence that you

22· ·weren't required to review that in order to complete

23· ·this report?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yeah.· We -- we

25· ·would have defined the scope of what we would need,

·1· ·based on our professional background and

·2· ·understanding of what is relevant and what is not.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· Thank you.

·4· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· I wonder, Ms. Kuka, if

·5· ·you might bring up -- it has not been made an

·6· ·exhibit yet.· It is Document MRWE787.

·7· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· MRWE787?

·8· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Yes.

·9· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· It is Exhibit No. 2141.

10· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Document 2141?

11· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· Yes, Exhibit No. 2141.

12· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Thank you.· I wonder if

13· ·you might bring it up please.

14· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·This is a Commentary D from

16· ·Commentaries on part 4 of the National Building Code

17· ·of Canada, 1975?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I imagine that you've seen this

20· ·document before.· Not necessarily in preparation for

21· ·this, but you would have used the document in the

22· ·past?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) The 1975

24· ·version, may -- I may not have used it, but I'm

25· ·familiar, yes.· Okay.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I'd like to ask you some

·2· ·questions, and the entire panel, if necessary, and

·3· ·this gets back to the movement of the panels.

·4· · · · · · · · · So if I could go to page -- the first

·5· ·page, please, and it's the: "Effects of deformation

·6· ·in building components."

·7· · · · · · · · · And my question is -- I want to ask

·8· ·you at the end of this -- I'll go through it --

·9· ·whether, in fact, you considered any of these issues

10· ·with respect to the difficulties at the mall and the

11· ·eventual collapse.

12· · · · · · · · · The first one is:

13· · · · · · · · · · "When building materials

14· · · · · · · · · expand and contract due to

15· · · · · · · · · temperature changes,

16· · · · · · · · · considerable forces may be

17· · · · · · · · · produced in restrained

18· · · · · · · · · structural elements, i.e. in

19· · · · · · · · · those elements that are not free

20· · · · · · · · · to expand and contract with the

21· · · · · · · · · changes in temperature."· [As

22· · · · · · · · · read.]

23· · · · · · · · · This gets back to the issue that the

24· ·steel components would have been inside the building

25· ·envelope, not subject to the thermal expansion or

·1· ·the thermal movement that would be occurring in the

·2· ·core slabs.

·3· · · · · · · · · So the question is -- it goes on to

·4· ·say:

·5· · · · · · · · · · "Often these forces are

·6· · · · · · · · · compounded with those produced

·7· · · · · · · · · by shrinkage, by creep and by

·8· · · · · · · · · moisture content changes and

·9· · · · · · · · · are, therefore, difficult to

10· · · · · · · · · analyze or predict.· In many

11· · · · · · · · · situations, however, it is very

12· · · · · · · · · important for the structural

13· · · · · · · · · designer to consider the

14· · · · · · · · · probable structural effects of

15· · · · · · · · · the forces produced by

16· · · · · · · · · temperature changes along with

17· · · · · · · · · all other forces."· [As read.]

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·When you reviewed the

20· ·documentation with respect to the work by the

21· ·structural engineer, are you of the opinion that he

22· ·adequately took into consideration the issue of the

23· ·thermal movement of the core slabs?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I -- I don't

25· ·know that he would have explicitly done these

·1· ·calculations.· I --

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You didn't see them?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, no, no.

·4· ·I -- I didn't see them, and I -- I would be

·5· ·surprised if he had assumed that -- whether he had

·6· ·assumed the structure to be within the envelope or

·7· ·outside the envelope, and that he would have made

·8· ·the distinction and would -- he would have done the

·9· ·calculations accordingly.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Why would that have surprised

11· ·you?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) The -- the steel

13· ·framing that we have, in general, let's say, we have

14· ·different components.· We have the -- the precast

15· ·and then we have the steel framing and then we have

16· ·the lateral bracing of the structure.· The -- the

17· ·precast elements would expand and -- and contract

18· ·under temperature.· And the main thing that would

19· ·be -- if this movement would be constricted, then

20· ·this would result in some additional inkling (phon.)

21· ·forces in those precast elements.

22· · · · · · · · · This would be of very small

23· ·significance here, because of the -- the constraints

24· ·that would result in -- in small forces that are

25· ·forces that are in the plane of the precast

·1· ·elements.

·2· · · · · · · · · So we come to the steel.· The steel

·3· ·is primarily designed not -- almost entirely

·4· ·designed as a -- a series of simply supported

·5· ·members.· And that -- what that means is that the

·6· ·frame is connected to the beams through what would

·7· ·be like hinges.· So basically the whole thing, if it

·8· ·were to be -- to sway, it would not exert forces

·9· ·onto these elements.

10· · · · · · · · · So they -- whatever takes the forces

11· ·would be the vertical elements.· In this particular

12· ·case, as we had said yesterday, there are these

13· ·tie-backs to the rock that take the forces in one

14· ·direction, and there are some walls in the other

15· ·direction.

16· · · · · · · · · Now, it's those elements that would

17· ·endure any significant impact from the temperature.

18· · · · · · · · · The steel and the hollowcore slobs,

19· ·even if -- if you did a very mature and very

20· ·deliberate analysis to establish the impact of

21· ·temperature, this impact would -- would only be

22· ·detected noticeably by those elements that laterally

23· ·brace the building, and hence, notwithstanding what

24· ·the original designer did or did not do, there --

25· ·in -- in our professional opinion, the impact of

·1· ·temperature on the precast and on the steel is not

·2· ·significant.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But your evidence --

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) And certainly

·5· ·not significant to this collapse.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Would it be your evidence,

·7· ·though, that you didn't see any evidence of that in

·8· ·the design, in the drawings that were --

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, yes, that

10· ·would be my --

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·That there was no evidence?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, that there

13· ·was no -- nothing that would give us indication that

14· ·they had conducted such thermal stress analysis.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I wonder, then, if I might turn

16· ·to Commentary D, and I will just be one moment.

17· ·I'll get you -- do you have it?· It is commentary D

18· ·or I can get you the exhibit.

19· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Ms. Kuka?· I'll just be

20· ·a minute.

21· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· Isn't that Commentary D?

22· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Oh, I'm sorry,

23· ·Commentary C.· Thank you.

24· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· This one?

25· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· It is Commentary C of

·1· ·that.· Thank you.

·2· · · · · · · · · No, Commentary C.· I'm sorry, I...

·3· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· I don't think I have that.

·4· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· All right.· If I might

·5· ·ask you, then, to pull up MRWE786?· Thank you.

·6· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Again, I am assuming that you've

·8· ·reviewed information with respect to progressive

·9· ·collapse and structural integrity?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) In -- in

11· ·particular relevance to this project?

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, I think the

14· ·collapse that did occur was not a progressive

15· ·collapse, in the sense that it did not expand beyond

16· ·the -- the failure of the connection.· And the --

17· ·the failure below is a direct impact of the failing

18· ·panels onto the upper mall panels and directly

19· ·failing them.

20· · · · · · · · · A progressive collapse would be where

21· ·there is a loss of -- say, a column that led to a

22· ·loss of a group of members, which eventually led to

23· ·a wave of loss of adjacent columns and more members,

24· ·where the entire structural or substantial part of

25· ·the structure would have failed.

·1· · · · · · · · · But in this particular case, this is

·2· ·a localized -- and the only progress in it is the

·3· ·actual impact of the dropped panels into the upper

·4· ·mall.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So it's your evidence that you

·6· ·didn't, in fact, review anything with respect to

·7· ·progressive collapse with respect to your report,

·8· ·prior to completing your report?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) well, If you ask

10· ·me a specific question, I will let you know what

11· ·we -- we would have looked at.

12· · · · · · · · · I mean, we are well aware of concepts

13· ·of progressive collapse and how they can be either

14· ·studied or -- or prevented, but in this particular

15· ·case, as I said, the -- the case at hand is that of

16· ·a failed -- localized failed connection that only

17· ·resulted in the failure of immediately -- vicinity

18· ·of that connection.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.· No, I -- if you

20· ·haven't -- if it wasn't reviewed as part of the

21· ·process, then I'm prepared to move on.

22· · · · · · · · · And getting very close to the finish,

23· ·I'd like to deal with an issue with respect to the

24· ·steel, if I might, Mr. Dinovitzer.

25· · · · · · · · · And that is, I'm just trying to see

·1· ·if you can provide any evidence with respect to the

·2· ·cause of the severe tear that is apparent on the

·3· ·lateral movement, that connection.

·4· · · · · · · · · If we go to Exhibit A and B, the

·5· ·easiest way would be to -- be Exhibit No. 3016,

·6· ·please.

·7· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Bring it up.· Okay.· If

·8· ·I might -- to page 2, please, Ms. Kuka?

·9· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· This one?

10· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· It is picture -- Figure

11· ·2.1 on page 2 of the actual report.

12· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· Exhibit No. 3007, or this?

13· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· I'm sorry, Ms. Kuka.· If

14· ·you might bring up from the NORR Report...

15· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· (Dr. Saffarini)

16· ·Appendix H would be BMT's.

17· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Appendix H.

20· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· This is the -- if I

21· ·might, if I could bring up that page?

22· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· It is Exhibit No. 3015.

23· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Exhibit No. 3015?· Thank

24· ·you very much.

25· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, I understand that as part

·2· ·of this process, you probably haven't had an

·3· ·opportunity to review this picture because you

·4· ·weren't provided with notice that you would be

·5· ·answering questions with respect to it, but if you

·6· ·are able to do that, I would ask that you consider

·7· ·that.

·8· · · · · · · · · This is the section -- if you could

·9· ·tell me what this picture is?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) This is a

11· ·picture of one of the received -- received exhibits

12· ·from the -- from the failure.· This is -- I believe

13· ·this is the flange of the column; right?

14· · · · · · · · · (Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And it appears that there is

16· ·some tearing at the top.· You spoke about that last

17· ·night -- or yesterday, rather, with respect to the

18· ·little triangle of material that was left?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) yes.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.· How would -- are you able

21· ·to say how the beam would have left that column?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) How the -- so

23· ·the process?

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The rotation?

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) The rotation?

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) If the -- so

·3· ·the observations that we made on the corrosion

·4· ·patterns and the deformations in the materials,

·5· ·suggests that that top corner, the top right in that

·6· ·photo -- it's difficult to see in this -- in this --

·7· ·that little bit of remaining material, that

·8· ·ligament, two, three inches long, was the

·9· ·remaining -- was the last element to fail.· So the

10· ·other portions of the weld would have failed before

11· ·it.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Would you be able to tell

13· ·whether the beam would have rotated at that point in

14· ·time, when it -- when it tore, from your testing

15· ·that you had done?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) There was a

17· ·figure that we illustrated, that that portion of

18· ·material that was left attached to the column flange

19· ·had been -- appeared to be rotated away from the

20· ·column, suggesting that the angle legs had, well,

21· ·moved laterally from the -- from the column before

22· ·failure.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· And then also on

24· ·that picture, there appears to be a buckling in the

25· ·area just on top of the tape, between the words

·1· ·"Side 1" and the tape?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I can comment on

·3· ·that, because I was on site.

·4· · · · · · · · · This is not buckling of the column,

·5· ·because if you -- if you see this image, in -- in

·6· ·fact, it is, as a result of the demolition activity

·7· ·that tore this out of the building, because they --

·8· ·if you take a photo -- there are photographs in --

·9· ·in evidence that show this column in place after the

10· ·collapse, being straight.

11· · · · · · · · · It is only in the process of the

12· ·demolition that this was bent.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· Thank you.· I'll review

14· ·those documents.

15· · · · · · · · · Then if I might move on to concrete,

16· ·I have a few questions with respect to concrete,

17· ·Dr. Ghods.

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Sure.

19· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· And, Ms. Kuka, would you

20· ·please take us to Exhibit No. 3007, page 96.

21· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The picture that appears in the

23· ·top right-hand corner -- if you could blow that up,

24· ·please -- 303 D-2?

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·That's part of the material that

·2· ·was removed in the core drilling from the hollowcore

·3· ·concrete?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And are you able to indicate

·6· ·whether that size of aggregate that is shown in that

·7· ·picture was consistent throughout the core slab?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes.· We have --

·9· ·based on the analysis we did, including petrographic

10· ·analysis, yes, they were consistent.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And during the course of this

12· ·testing, did you review the maximum size of any of

13· ·the aggregate?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) I believe we didn't

15· ·look at the maximum size of the aggregate.

16· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Then in the same

17· ·exhibit, if I might go to page 94, please?· And if

18· ·you could blow up picture number (a), Figure 5-12

19· ·(a)?

20· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·There is a pen in that picture

22· ·and it's pointing out something.· What is the point

23· ·of that?· What is happening there?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) So basically there

25· ·were some voids the size of the hollowcore slabs.

·1· ·We were just trying to point to some voids that we

·2· ·observed.

·3· · · · · · · · · This is just observation we made

·4· ·during our site visit.· Yeah.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.

·6· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Then if I might, then,

·7· ·go to Exhibit No. 3017, the NCR testing, and it

·8· ·would be page 41.

·9· · · · · · · · · Is that what you are bringing up for

10· ·page 41?

11· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· Yeah.

12· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I can move on, then.· I have one

14· ·last question with respect to that.

15· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· Is it supposed to be

16· ·photos?

17· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Yes, it is.

18· · · · · · · · · Well, page 132, photo 41.

19· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· What was the page?

20· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· 132.

21· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· I don't know if this is

22· ·it.· This?

23· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Yes, that's it.

24· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I wonder if you might take a

·1· ·close look at the core sample that's on the top.

·2· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· If you could enlarge the

·3· ·one that's on the top, please, Ms. Kuka?· Can you

·4· ·take it up any larger than that?

·5· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·There is a dark slice in that,

·7· ·or a dark -- it appears to be a dark area of that

·8· ·core.· Can you describe what that would be?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) The brownish one,

10· ·the dark area here?

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) I believe it was a

13· ·trace of steel mesh, actually.· So when we did the

14· ·core drilling, there was a piece of mesh actually

15· ·remaining on the core.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· And then two last

17· ·questions, to the whole panel.

18· · · · · · · · · Did your investigation seek to

19· ·determine if there were other possible causes or

20· ·contributing factors to the collapse, to the failure

21· ·of that beam?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, of course.

23· ·I mean, we -- we considered or we reflected on any

24· ·possibilities, as -- as we have said, in terms of

25· ·looking at the design and then the -- and any

·1· ·contributing factors.

·2· · · · · · · · · The fact that in this particular

·3· ·case, as I have said yesterday, it was very evident

·4· ·that the connection was completely deteriorated,

·5· ·that the capacity that remained in the connection

·6· ·was so low that it was -- it was not very difficult

·7· ·to correlate the cause of collapse with that

·8· ·diminishing strength of that connection, pointed us

·9· ·in this direction, but -- but we nevertheless

10· ·explored the strength and design capacity and so on,

11· ·of all of the members.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you very much.· And then

13· ·one last question with respect to...

14· · · · · · · · · Yesterday, we were dealing with the

15· ·report, and -- that you had provided, and there was

16· ·some confusion -- I'm just going to bring up the

17· ·picture.· There was a report that you provided.· We

18· ·went through the pages, because it didn't correlate

19· ·directly with the NORR Report, so I just have a

20· ·question with respect to that picture.

21· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Ms. Kuka, where is the

22· ·number on it?

23· · · · · · · · · MR. BISCEGLIA:· The exhibit number is

24· ·on the front of the document.

25· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· It is Exhibit No. 5159,

·1· ·and then page 0055.

·2· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· Can I see that picture

·3· ·again?

·4· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Certainly.· Thank you.

·5· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· What's the exhibit

·6· ·number?· Is it Exhibit No. 5159?

·7· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· Yes.

·8· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Page 0055, yes.

·9· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Right.

10· · · · · · · · · BY MR. MacRAE:

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, this is a picture that was

12· ·included in the -- or that you referred to yesterday

13· ·in your discussion, and my understanding is that

14· ·your first appearance on the site was some time in

15· ·July, July --

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) The 21st of

17· ·July, specifically.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·21st of July, almost a month

19· ·after the collapse.

20· · · · · · · · · So are you able to indicate -- my

21· ·understanding is that there was a facade in front of

22· ·that?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) There was a

24· ·cladding, yes.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·There was a cladding?· That was

·1· ·my only question -- or, well, you removed --

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, and I think

·3· ·I said that there was a -- a cladding on this, but

·4· ·you could look, view from below, from the other

·5· ·side, because this was open from the other side.

·6· ·Remember, there is a hole that is a continuous -- a

·7· ·complete hole, so the fact that you would see light

·8· ·through it, you would not see light, but you would

·9· ·see substantial corrosion.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Did you take any pictures from

11· ·the other side?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) We have taken --

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes, we do have some

14· ·pictures from the other side of the walkway,

15· ·Zellers, actually, side.

16· · · · · · · · · A.· (Dr. Saffarini) No, this is not

17· ·in Zellers side.· This is on the side which is on

18· ·the entrance of the mall.

19· · · · · · · · · A.· (Dr. Ghods) Yes.

20· · · · · · · · · A.· (Dr. Saffarini) The north.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But my under -- go ahead.

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) So we don't have

23· ·specifically at this location, other side, but we

24· ·have similar one in the walkway there.

25· · · · · · · · · A. (Dr. Saffarini) From the walkway,

·1· ·continuing to --

·2· · · · · · · · · A. (Dr. Ghods) In Zellers area, yeah.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And my understanding is that

·4· ·there may have been cladding on both sides, but

·5· ·we'll have to maybe get that evidence from someone

·6· ·else, because --

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I believe the --

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- it was gone when you arrived;

·9· ·right?· Or did you remove it?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, actually it

11· ·was not gone when you we arrived.· We did not

12· ·literally remove it, but we have seen it being

13· ·removed, yes.

14· · · · · · · · · MR. MacRAE:· Thank you very much.

15· ·Those are my questions.

16· · · · · · · · · Thank you very much,

17· ·Mr. Commissioner.

18· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Who is next?· Mr.

19· ·Bisceglia?

20· · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BISCEGLIA:

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Good morning.· My name is Joe

22· ·Bisceglia.· I have a few questions to ask of you.

23· · · · · · · · · First of all, I thank you for the

24· ·science and the help that you've been to us this

25· ·morning and yesterday.· I am more interested today,

·1· ·though, and my question is directed at the process,

·2· ·as opposed to the science.

·3· · · · · · · · · My appreciation of the facts are that

·4· ·you were retained by the Ontario Provincial Police;

·5· ·is that correct?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That's correct,

·7· ·yes.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And in order to fulfill your

·9· ·obligations with the Ontario Provincial Police, I'm

10· ·aware that you signed a written retainer agreement;

11· ·is that correct?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is correct,

13· ·yes.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And part of the retainer

15· ·agreement was a level of confidentiality; is that

16· ·right?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And at that time, the Ontario

19· ·Provincial Police was investigating the matter for

20· ·potential criminal charges or other consequences

21· ·arising from the collapse; is that fair?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.· That's

23· ·correct.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And under the terms of

25· ·reference, you were also given by the Ontario

·1· ·Provincial Police certain information, documents and

·2· ·so on, upon which to arrive at a conclusion or a

·3· ·series of conclusions; is that correct?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And you were instructed by the

·6· ·Ontario Provincial Police to provide to the Ontario

·7· ·Provincial Police the basis or foundation for

·8· ·potential findings of negligence or other liability;

·9· ·is that correct?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That was one of

11· ·the --

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) -- terms in the

14· ·scope.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So in the course of providing

16· ·your opinion to the Ontario Provincial Police and in

17· ·the fullness of time after the Commission was

18· ·appointed, all of your documents and your -- and you

19· ·were summonsed to produce -- I'm sorry.

20· · · · · · · · · The Ontario Provincial Police were

21· ·summonsed to produce all of their documents, and in

22· ·the fullness of time, you were asked to testify, to

23· ·help us out?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That's right.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· And in the course of

·1· ·coming to your opinion, you were working on certain

·2· ·assumptions and certain information that was

·3· ·provided to you by the investigators involved with

·4· ·the Ontario Provincial Police; is that fair?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And you were given, I gather,

·7· ·statements of witnesses or will-says of certain

·8· ·individuals to assist you in coming to a conclusion;

·9· ·is that right?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And my question to you is this:

12· ·The Commission has heard evidence of people under

13· ·oath -- excuse me.

14· · · · · · · · · The Commission has heard evidence

15· ·from individuals under oath, and ultimately the

16· ·Commission Counsel produced certain evidence for the

17· ·Commissioner to consider.· And after all is said and

18· ·done, the Commissioner will make certain findings of

19· ·fact as to what is accepted in evidence and what is

20· ·rejected in evidence.

21· · · · · · · · · I gather you appreciate the process

22· ·that we're in?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I'm sure you

24· ·know it a lot more than I do.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, if the factual foundation

·1· ·or the factual basis upon which you were working are

·2· ·found by the Commissioner not to exist, would you be

·3· ·prepared to revisit your conclusions and opinions?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I believe that

·5· ·our conclusions and opinions were part of a

·6· ·particular commission and a particular scope that we

·7· ·were given, and we submitted this scope.

·8· · · · · · · · · I think ours is -- is only one

·9· ·element in -- in a whole series of elements that

10· ·would be considered duly by the Commission, and I'm

11· ·not going to comment on how the Commission is going

12· ·to interpret these, but I don't think that we have a

13· ·mandate or obligation to regenerate another report

14· ·that would take into account the findings of this

15· ·Commission.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·That's not my question.

17· · · · · · · · · Would you agree with me that if the

18· ·basic premise or factual findings that you included

19· ·in your report were found not to be the case by the

20· ·Commissioner, would you agree that perhaps your

21· ·opinions should be altered?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Our opinion is

23· ·whatever -- and we qualify that it is whatever we

24· ·had at the time, that would be our opinion based on

25· ·the information that we have.

·1· · · · · · · · · If somebody else commissions us and

·2· ·we are to undergo another study based on new facts,

·3· ·then that would be a new study.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, we have a process here

·5· ·that -- in fairness to yourself -- is not --

·6· ·sometimes not quite the way that it works in civil

·7· ·matters.· Have any of you testified on a civil

·8· ·proceeding, in a courtroom?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) I think -- yes.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·One of you has?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Yes.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And you've been qualified as an

13· ·expert in your area?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Yes.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·What about the rest of you?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, typically, experts -- and

18· ·if I'm out of order here, Mr. Commissioner, I stand

19· ·to be corrected and you can so indicate -- typically

20· ·an expert is asked:· If the following facts are

21· ·found to be true, what would your conclusion or

22· ·opinion be?

23· · · · · · · · · What we have here is you finding

24· ·certain facts and then coming to your conclusions

25· ·based on the facts as you see them.

·1· · · · · · · · · Let me give you an example.· If you

·2· ·go to your NORR Report, page 46, paragraph m?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The paragraph says:

·5· · · · · · · · · · "Fireproofing was reinstated

·6· · · · · · · · · by December 14, 2009.· The

·7· · · · · · · · · records show that the W24x110

·8· · · · · · · · · beam, which eventually

·9· · · · · · · · · collapsed, was inspected by MRW

10· · · · · · · · · to validate fireproofing.· It is

11· · · · · · · · · not clear who specifically

12· · · · · · · · · observed the beam and connection

13· · · · · · · · · before the fireproofing but it

14· · · · · · · · · is evident that the beam was

15· · · · · · · · · fully exposed with ample

16· · · · · · · · · opportunity to observe."

17· · · · · · · · · Where did you get that finding of

18· ·fact?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, there are

20· ·several components to -- to this statement.· One --

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, where did you get the

22· ·fact --

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, I'm trying

24· ·to answer.

25· · · · · · · · · MR. CARR-HARRIS:· Let him answer,

·1· ·Mr. Bisceglia.

·2· · · · · · · · · BY MR. BISCEGLIA:

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) So basically

·5· ·there is the -- we have in -- in our record and

·6· ·evidence, that this particular beam was identified

·7· ·as requiring fireproofing.

·8· · · · · · · · · We have records as in notes of

·9· ·inspection by MRW, where it says, yes, fireproofing

10· ·has been applied.· So -- so we know that there was

11· ·fireproofing to be applied, and that MRW have

12· ·acknowledged that they have checked that this

13· ·fireproofing has been applied.

14· · · · · · · · · And we are making a statement here.

15· ·Saying that we are not sure who would have done and

16· ·inspected the process of applying the fireproofing.

17· ·Perhaps it was only checked as in:· Yes, it was

18· ·applied.

19· · · · · · · · · And that's all we are saying.· That's

20· ·what the statement is.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So just so that I'm clear, you

22· ·are making your observations on the notes of MRW; is

23· ·that correct?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is correct,

25· ·yes.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And you have no basis, I put it

·2· ·to you, to say that the beam was inspected as -- I'm

·3· ·sorry, that the beam was fully exposed along with

·4· ·the connection?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) We have -- we

·6· ·have the -- the specifications of MRW that require

·7· ·that this beam be cleaned, and then new fire

·8· ·protection with new specification, one with

·9· ·fire-resist -- with water-repellent fire protection.

10· · · · · · · · · So basically if the specification was

11· ·followed through -- and we are assuming that MRW,

12· ·since they accepted this, they would have seen to it

13· ·that the specification would have been followed

14· ·through -- then that would have mandated cleaning of

15· ·the beam and reinstating a new type of fireproofing.

16· · · · · · · · · Whether this was done or not, that --

17· ·that obviously becomes an issue of speculation, and

18· ·we are saying that, in fact, here in this statement.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, I'll ask the question

20· ·again.· What is the evidentiary basis for stating

21· ·that the beam was "fully exposed with ample

22· ·opportunity to observe"?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) We are saying --

24· ·I'm just answering that to clean the beam and remove

25· ·the fire protection so that you apply the new one,

·1· ·then there was the opportunity for inspection.

·2· · · · · · · · · Now, whether this opportunity was

·3· ·grabbed, whether this opportunity was used to do an

·4· ·inspection or not, clearly -- and the implication,

·5· ·perhaps, is that it was not fully inspected but

·6· ·there was the opportunity to inspect.

·7· · · · · · · · · MR. BISCEGLIA:· Those are my

·8· ·questions of you.· Thank you very much.· Thank you.

·9· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Ms. Carr?

10· · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CARR:

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Good morning,

12· ·Mr. Commissioner -- afternoon now, I guess --

13· ·gentlemen.

14· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Not quite. A

15· ·minute to go.· That clock's not right.

16· · · · · · · · · BY MS. CARR:

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·My name is Alex Carr and I am

18· ·one of the lawyers for the Elliot Lake Mall Action

19· ·Committee, which is a community group that has

20· ·standing in this Inquiry.

21· · · · · · · · · I wanted to focus my questions during

22· ·my examination on steps that could have been taken

23· ·to stop the leaks or prevent the collapse at various

24· ·stages during the life of the building.

25· · · · · · · · · I think most of my questions, with

·1· ·the exception of the first design stage, are going

·2· ·to be directed to Mr. Saffarini, and design stage

·3· ·I'll probably be asking Mr. Hughes.

·4· · · · · · · · · Mr. Hughes, I understand that your

·5· ·critique in terms of the design stage, there were

·6· ·two critiques, major critiques, let's say.· The

·7· ·first was the choice of the waterproofing system,

·8· ·and the second was the choice of the hollowcore

·9· ·slab, in the sense that it later precluded a

10· ·potentially effective waterproofing system from

11· ·being installed; is that right?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I would agree with

13· ·the first statement.· I'm not sure I'd entirely

14· ·agree with the second statement.

15· · · · · · · · · The use of the hollowcore slabs was

16· ·appropriate; it was structurally sound and could

17· ·have taken whatever -- well, the discussion whether

18· ·or not it could take the load is another discussion

19· ·altogether, but the use of the hollowcore slabs in

20· ·this kind of application is perfectly reasonable.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So that was going to be my

22· ·question.· If the choice of waterproofing system had

23· ·been an asphalt waterproofing member, the choice of

24· ·hollowcore slabs would have been perfectly

25· ·appropriate?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Certainly, yes.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And is the waterproofing system,

·3· ·the Peterson waterproofing system, is it lighter

·4· ·than the asphalt waterproofing membrane.

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The Peterson

·6· ·waterproofing system has virtually no weight to it

·7· ·whatsoever.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) It's, as far as I

10· ·can tell, a liquid, applied penetrating sealer.

11· ·It's -- it would be mopped or painted on, or

12· ·possibly even sprayed.· I'm not sure of the

13· ·application method, but you wouldn't even see it

14· ·once it was on.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So if an asphalt waterproofing

16· ·membrane had been chosen -- and maybe this is a

17· ·question for an engineer -- but would the eight-inch

18· ·hollowcore slabs, would they have still been

19· ·appropriate to handle that load?· Or would you have

20· ·needed a heavier slab?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Well, this -- this

22· ·becomes a question that is a -- becomes slightly

23· ·structural in nature.· Let's just -- I'll proceed to

24· ·answer that on the basis that we assume the

25· ·hollowcore was able to take the load.

·1· · · · · · · · · Applying an asphaltic-based system,

·2· ·whether it was a single use of material or a

·3· ·material, membrane material, that has an asphaltic

·4· ·wear course on top of it, that is a -- that's a

·5· ·perfectly appropriate system and would have

·6· ·performed adequately, I would assume.

·7· · · · · · · · · The issue of whether or not the

·8· ·hollowcore slabs could take that load in addition to

·9· ·or in absence of the topping is another discussion

10· ·altogether.

11· · · · · · · · · (Dr. Saffarini) I think there is one

12· ·story that was, perhaps, not told, in our testimony,

13· ·at least, but I'm sure maybe it has been raised by

14· ·others.

15· · · · · · · · · The original owner, Mr. Hirt, had

16· ·sent out the Peterson proposal for waterproofing to

17· ·another architect, engineer -- I'm not sure -- AGE

18· ·Cunningham, who was asked whether -- to comment on

19· ·the validity of this system.

20· · · · · · · · · And rather than specifically validate

21· ·the -- the system, what he had said is that you have

22· ·to make sure that you have enough capacity in your

23· ·structure to accommodate a waterproofing system,

24· ·once -- and in the eventuality that this system

25· ·fails.

·1· · · · · · · · · So at the -- even at the outset, even

·2· ·before there was any selection of system, even,

·3· ·there was the opportunity that was available to make

·4· ·sure that, one, that the system that you have would

·5· ·work; secondly, that you have a recourse if this

·6· ·system does not work.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And is it your view that that

·8· ·redundancy, let's say, that if they had created that

·9· ·redundancy in the capacity, that that would have

10· ·been a prudent choice?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, clearly.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So it is my understanding that

13· ·the only problem with the hollowcore slabs is that

14· ·it didn't have that redundancy, with the choice of

15· ·the eight-inch hollowcore slabs that it didn't have

16· ·that redundancy?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, actually,

18· ·if I may comment on that, I think all of the

19· ·discussions in terms of the hollowcore slabs were --

20· ·in terms of who said what, when, but in terms of the

21· ·capacity of the hollowcore slab, once -- it is a

22· ·composite slab.· Remember that the hollowcore slab

23· ·had a capacity, a nominal capacity that was asked,

24· ·of 120 pounds per square foot.· This capacity was

25· ·applicable to the upper mall and the roof.

·1· · · · · · · · · The roof had, in addition, the -- the

·2· ·composite action.· So, in fact, what the composite

·3· ·action does is that at least it takes up the load of

·4· ·the concrete, so that whatever margin that -- that

·5· ·remains is only for the live load and the

·6· ·addition -- and the superimposed dead load, other

·7· ·than the own weight.

·8· · · · · · · · · So the topping becomes part of the --

·9· ·the slab system.

10· · · · · · · · · So in my mind, there was no issue of

11· ·accommodating this load.· And at the end of the day,

12· ·Alex Tobias and Trow had recommended that -- that

13· ·they can accommodate the load.· So the issue of

14· ·accommodating the -- the load was, perhaps, a

15· ·hindrance, it was a diversion, and perhaps an

16· ·excuse.

17· · · · · · · · · But at the end of the day, there was

18· ·a clear recommendation that there was the ability of

19· ·that slab to take a nominal waterproofing system, or

20· ·a waterproofing system, for that matter.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.· We heard testimony

22· ·from the representative from the Peterson company,

23· ·who said that, in his view, part of the problem was

24· ·the combination of the water -- the Harry Peterson

25· ·waterproofing system and the hollowcore slabs, that

·1· ·generally they had used a precast double-T system?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And that's what they used before

·4· ·and that's what they continued to use after, and so

·5· ·his view was it may have been that combination of

·6· ·products.

·7· · · · · · · · · Can you comment on that?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.· I think

·9· ·that -- that in particular, the obvious kind of

10· ·correlation of such a statement is that the

11· ·double-Ts tend to be larger and wider, and they

12· ·would have had a joint between each and every

13· ·double-T.

14· · · · · · · · · So it is conceivable that this system

15· ·would have been more successful with a double-T than

16· ·a hollowcore slab, especially that they made a

17· ·judgment on actually having a joint every third

18· ·point of -- or joint between two panels.· So

19· ·basically had they done it every panel, perhaps they

20· ·would have had less of a problem with the sealing,

21· ·but at the same time, they would have generated so

22· ·many joints that the probability of some of them

23· ·failing becomes high.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So --

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Which is what

·1· ·happened at the end of the day.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.· And you've told us

·3· ·already that in your view, the Trow recommendation

·4· ·was a viable option.

·5· · · · · · · · · MS. CARR:· I just wanted to pull up

·6· ·Exhibit No. 51, if we could, Ms. Kuka, which is the

·7· ·1995 report with the Alex Tobias attachment.

·8· · · · · · · · · BY MS. CARR:

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Under point 4, which I think is,

10· ·yeah, the third page, the question is:

11· · · · · · · · · · "'How often should the

12· · · · · · · · · structure be investigated?'"

13· · · · · · · · · And the recommendation there is that:

14· · · · · · · · · · "An engineering company should

15· · · · · · · · · be retained on an annual basis

16· · · · · · · · · to carry out a visual inspection

17· · · · · · · · · and random chain drag of the

18· · · · · · · · · waterproofing system as well as

19· · · · · · · · · reviewing Algo Centre's monthly

20· · · · · · · · · monitoring logs."

21· · · · · · · · · And my understanding of what they're

22· ·recommending there is consistent with what you had

23· ·said yesterday, was a fair -- what you would find in

24· ·a fair condition of a mall.

25· · · · · · · · · So I wanted to ask:· Would you agree

·1· ·with that recommendation, that even if you were able

·2· ·to stop the leaks in 1995, you would have to

·3· ·regularly, yearly, have an engineer come in and

·4· ·inspect the structure?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Absolutely.

·6· ·Absolutely.· Now, with time, if they inspected and

·7· ·it's -- with -- it's over so many years and there is

·8· ·a watertight system because there is a waterproofing

·9· ·system that was applied, and that it proved to be

10· ·successful and so on, you don't need to investigate

11· ·any further, you know.· Like in somebody's -- it's

12· ·like a cancer.· You have to -- you've removed it and

13· ·you've checked it for so many years, then the

14· ·probability of occurrence becomes equal, and this

15· ·becomes like any other building.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So there was nothing inherently

17· ·wrong with the --

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- structure, at this stage,

20· ·anyway?· The deterioration hadn't progressed to the

21· ·point where you would require any kind of

22· ·retrofitting at this stage?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Not at the time

24· ·of Trow.

25· · · · · · · · · Likely, our -- our timeline for the

·1· ·failure, for the corrosion process, would have put

·2· ·this as within the lower corrosion, as in what we

·3· ·would categorize as good to fair.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.· And if we could turn

·5· ·to the next page, the "Repair Options," I just

·6· ·wanted to ask:· In both of the repair options, there

·7· ·is a recommendation that a one-storey roof canopy

·8· ·structure be put over the parking deck, and I'm just

·9· ·wondering, if asphalt membrane would have been

10· ·sufficient -- which is what I understand was your

11· ·evidence yesterday -- why is this canopy required,

12· ·even in the first option?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, the canopy

14· ·is a different story altogether.· I don't know that

15· ·we agree completely with the -- with the canopy

16· ·for -- for specific reasons.

17· · · · · · · · · The -- the canopy was to cover a part

18· ·of the requirements.· There was a requirement in

19· ·the -- on the drawings that if snow drifts and piles

20· ·up against the walls of the hotel, then there would

21· ·be a higher level of loading, and -- and as a

22· ·result, there would be the -- the concrete and the

23· ·steel would not be sufficient, nominally, at least.

24· · · · · · · · · Now, the reality is there was -- the

25· ·arguments that were made by Meyer and by others that

·1· ·the probability of the piling happening with an

·2· ·operational roof is low, so you don't need to do

·3· ·that.

·4· · · · · · · · · The possibility of abandoning the

·5· ·roof, say, and piling to take place is there, so

·6· ·that would have been a possibility then.

·7· · · · · · · · · The idea of having this canopy was

·8· ·proposed, but I would propose equally that wind

·9· ·would blow and pile the snow anyway, even if you had

10· ·a limited canopy.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So in your view, this canopy

12· ·might not have been necessary?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I don't think

14· ·that -- I think what would have been much more

15· ·important is to take care of the waterproofing.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.· I'd like to turn now

17· ·to the period when Retirement Living owned the mall.

18· · · · · · · · · I take it, given that yesterday -- I

19· ·thought that your evidence was that you had agreed

20· ·with the Halsall Report saying that the building was

21· ·structurally sound, that if they had at that point,

22· ·in 1999 when they took ownership of the mall, if

23· ·they had put in an asphalt waterproof membrane, they

24· ·would have been able to stop the leaks and would

25· ·have been able to do so without retrofitting the

·1· ·building, and perhaps implementing the same type of

·2· ·monitoring that was suggested in the 1995 Trow

·3· ·Report; is that right?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, I think --

·5· ·I think that would be a period where, had the

·6· ·waterproofing...

·7· · · · · · · · · Of course, I mean, there is -- there

·8· ·is always some uncertainty, because we don't know

·9· ·exactly what the condition was, and where -- every

10· ·connection and every member, and so on, but in our

11· ·mind, the -- by that time, had you stopped the --

12· ·the leakage and had you stopped the corrosion

13· ·process, in our view the structure likely would have

14· ·endured.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.· And is there some

16· ·point during the tenure of Retirement Living's

17· ·ownership between 1999 and 2005, that -- and I

18· ·understand this is just going to be an opinion --

19· ·you believe that more than just stopping the leaks

20· ·and monitoring the building would have been

21· ·required?· It would have required some additional

22· ·step?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And can you give me an estimate

25· ·of when that would have been?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) On day one, I

·2· ·think, on day one, once the -- Halsall had found

·3· ·that there -- they don't need Halsall to know that

·4· ·the leakage is ongoing.· The -- Halsall would have

·5· ·found corrosion.

·6· · · · · · · · · The corrosion was -- was -- by that

·7· ·time, Halsall already report a corrosion of three to

·8· ·five millimetres, that is equivalent to, they say,

·9· ·one millimetre.· So -- so already by that time there

10· ·would have been enough alarm to -- to do something

11· ·and to continue to monitor.

12· · · · · · · · · There was -- I think that time was --

13· ·was a critical time.· That is the time when it could

14· ·have been --

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So what would have been

16· ·required, in addition to installing the waterproof

17· ·asphalt membrane and monitoring the situation?· What

18· ·else would you have had to have done?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) We expect that

20· ·not much else in terms of retrofitting the

21· ·structure, as in strengthening the structure.

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) We expect that

24· ·at that time, had they done the waterproofing, and

25· ·had they inspected regularly to make sure that --

·1· ·that the corrosion is not progressing, that would

·2· ·have been a prudent, sufficient course of action.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I think I'm missing something.

·4· ·Is there some point in time where you would have had

·5· ·to actually retrofit the building?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, there would

·7· ·have been.· I cannot tell you that time, but there

·8· ·clearly is that point, a point of no return, in

·9· ·terms of the capacity of the structure having been

10· ·depleted.

11· · · · · · · · · When we talk about the failed

12· ·connection, in particular, it was what we estimate

13· ·to have lost 85 percent of its capacity.

14· · · · · · · · · Had it lost 50 percent of its

15· ·capacity, that would have been sufficiently

16· ·disastrous that it cannot be accepted.· So if it had

17· ·lost 10 percent of its capacity, we are quoting the

18· ·OSIM as -- as saying that for those types of losses,

19· ·some retrofit would be required.

20· · · · · · · · · So -- so we were very far from --

21· ·from that threshold, so the threshold would have

22· ·been reached somewhere around the early 2000s.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) In that -- in

25· ·that period, yeah.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.

·2· · · · · · · · · MS. CARR:· I'd like to turn to

·3· ·Exhibit No. 1591, Ms. Kuka, if we could?

·4· · · · · · · · · BY MS. CARR:

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I'm interested in the fourth

·6· ·bullet point from the bottom of the first page here.

·7· · · · · · · · · This is -- oh, actually, maybe I

·8· ·should just show you who this e-mail is from first.

·9· · · · · · · · · It is from Mr. Andrew Holford at

10· ·Kleinfeldt, which is an engineering company, and

11· ·he's writing to, I think, his bosses at the company,

12· ·just explaining his dealings with Eastwood Mall.

13· · · · · · · · · And if we could just turn to the

14· ·fourth bullet point from the bottom, he says:

15· · · · · · · · · · "We then informed Bob that the

16· · · · · · · · · only viable system out there

17· · · · · · · · · right now was a thin traffic

18· · · · · · · · · bearing system.· We also

19· · · · · · · · · informed him that any thin

20· · · · · · · · · system would require annual

21· · · · · · · · · maintenance.· We informed Bob

22· · · · · · · · · that the only way to get a thick

23· · · · · · · · · system installed would be to

24· · · · · · · · · remove the existing concrete

25· · · · · · · · · topping.· He said this was cost

·1· · · · · · · · · prohibitive and rejected this

·2· · · · · · · · · option."

·3· · · · · · · · · And we heard evidence from

·4· ·Mr. Holford that the idea was to utilize a much

·5· ·lighter traffic-bearing membrane that would be

·6· ·installed on the surface of the concrete, but it

·7· ·would be robust enough to handle vehicle traffic,

·8· ·and it wouldn't have required an asphalt topping.

·9· · · · · · · · · Can you provide comments on whether

10· ·you agree with this being a viable option at that

11· ·point in time?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yeah.· Well,

13· ·again, the viability is only in terms of the

14· ·waterproofing, but I would comment on that, bearing

15· ·in mind that by 2008, and obviously unknowingly to

16· ·the correspondents --

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes, sure.

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) -- that the

19· ·structure was in -- in a dire condition and probably

20· ·needed some major retrofit.

21· · · · · · · · · But what I can comment on here is the

22· ·fact that, clearly, the flow of information and

23· ·availability of information, in terms of reporting

24· ·and these recommendations and so on, does not appear

25· ·to be available.· So basically I'm not sure if -- if

·1· ·the new owner was aware of the Trow recommendations

·2· ·or if he knew of the capacity of the system or if

·3· ·things were passed on in a structured manner, where

·4· ·the final recommendation is this, and that's what it

·5· ·takes and so on.

·6· · · · · · · · · So from looking at this, it would

·7· ·seem that the author of this document is implying

·8· ·that -- that there is no available capacity beyond

·9· ·taking a light-traffic system?

10· · · · · · · · · (Mr. Hughes) If I may, think the

11· ·eighth -- seventh or eighth point from the bottom,

12· ·actually -- "We performed a detailed review" -- the

13· ·second sentence is the result -- is the final

14· ·structure could not support the additional dead load

15· ·of rubber and asphalt.

16· · · · · · · · · (Dr. Saffarini) Well, there you go.

17· · · · · · · · · So -- so they have done that, again,

18· ·independently of other recommendations, and

19· ·presumably by looking at the simple core slab

20· ·tables, I assume -- I haven't read this document --

21· ·which would have swayed them away from the actual

22· ·application of -- of additional load.

23· · · · · · · · · Nevertheless, would such a system be

24· ·viable?· Yes.· Would it require more maintenance?

25· ·Yes.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.· And last question is

·2· ·on page -- well, X of your report.

·3· · · · · · · · · MS. CARR:· Which is Exhibit No. 3007,

·4· ·Ms. Kuka.· And if you could scroll down to the last

·5· ·paragraph?

·6· · · · · · · · · BY MS. CARR:

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I am going to start reading from

·8· ·the last sentence there and continue on to the next

·9· ·page.· It says:

10· · · · · · · · · · "Had such an inspection..."

11· · · · · · · · · And it's referring to a "thorough

12· ·inspection":

13· · · · · · · · · · "... been carried out in the

14· · · · · · · · · last ten years or so of the life

15· · · · · · · · · of the building, it is

16· · · · · · · · · inconceivable that the severe

17· · · · · · · · · condition of the steel would not

18· · · · · · · · · have been detected.· A number of

19· · · · · · · · · actions could have been taken to

20· · · · · · · · · avoid collapse had the critical

21· · · · · · · · · condition been identified in

22· · · · · · · · · time."

23· · · · · · · · · And I just wanted to ask if you could

24· ·provide some examples of the actions that could have

25· ·been taken to avoid the collapse.

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Okay.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Aside from -- I understand that

·3· ·tearing down the mall would have been one of them,

·4· ·but...

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.· Yes.

·6· ·Well, I -- we were not referring to that.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) But basically if

·9· ·you read this carefully, you would see that -- that

10· ·what we are saying is that if a thorough inspection,

11· ·as per the type of connection that was specified by

12· ·OSIM -- and it doesn't have to be per this standard

13· ·in particular, but a comprehensive kind of

14· ·inspection -- then we are saying that it is

15· ·inconceivable that they would not have detected some

16· ·severe conditions in the -- in the mall.

17· · · · · · · · · But we are -- the last statement is

18· ·saying that had the specific connection been

19· ·identified, then a number of measures could have

20· ·been taken and the measures would have been

21· ·relatively inexpensive in terms of the overall, you

22· ·know, picture.

23· · · · · · · · · It would have been to isolate this

24· ·joint.· You would need to shore the structure

25· ·locally, you would need to clean the joint, and

·1· ·augment the steel in that area by plating and

·2· ·welding.

·3· · · · · · · · · So basically you would need to

·4· ·somehow either remove some of these elements.

·5· ·Perhaps the faulty angle could have been removed, a

·6· ·new member could have been installed and so on.

·7· · · · · · · · · So there would have been measures to

·8· ·take.

·9· · · · · · · · · Now, at that time, had an engineer

10· ·been brought into site and had the engineer found

11· ·the -- the particular severity of the condition that

12· ·is at hand, probably by that time the prudent action

13· ·would have been to tear the mall down.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·"By that time," you mean --

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·By the time that you see that

16· ·there is a connection that has -- that has such a

17· ·large depletion of -- of material, that could have

18· ·been a course of action that would have been

19· ·contemplated, because otherwise what you would need

20· ·to do is to inspect each and every connection and

21· ·make sure that no other connection is exhibiting

22· ·similar signs of deterioration.

23· · · · · · · · · MS. CARR:· Thank you very much.

24· ·Those are my questions.

25· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Thank you.

·1· · · · · · · · · MR. CARR-HARRIS:· Mr. Commissioner, I

·2· ·wonder if we could just canvass the room as to who

·3· ·is remaining to cross-examine and how -- give some

·4· ·sort of rough estimate of the time involved.

·5· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Thank you.

·6· · · · · · · · · Mr. Kearns, you were on your feet, so

·7· ·obviously you want to examine.

·8· · · · · · · · · MR. KEARNS:· I think I'd be about 15

·9· ·minutes.

10· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· 15 for you.

11· · · · · · · · · And who are we left with?

12· ·Mr. Cassan?

13· · · · · · · · · MR. CASSAN:· I probably have 15

14· ·minutes, as well, Mr. Commissioner.

15· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Mr. Delgado?

16· · · · · · · · · MR. DELGADO:· Maybe 15 or 20 minutes,

17· ·but I understand that Commission Counsel has --

18· ·would like to make some submissions before I

19· ·cross-examine.

20· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· So we can perhaps

21· ·put you off to this afternoon.· And while -- have I

22· ·missed anyone?· Mr. Myles?· No?

23· · · · · · · · · And so let's go ahead with

24· ·Mr. Kearns; you were first on your feet.

25· · · · · · · · · If you don't mind, Mr. Cassan?

·1· · · · · · · · · MS. SMITH:· And I don't have any

·2· ·questions either.

·3· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· I'm sorry,

·4· ·Ms. Parker, I forgot you.

·5· · · · · · · · · MS. SMITH:· It's Ms. Smith,

·6· ·Commissioner.· I don't have any questions.

·7· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Thank you.

·8· · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEARNS:

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Good afternoon, gentlemen.· My

10· ·name is Doug Kearns.· I am the lawyer for Retirement

11· ·Living.

12· · · · · · · · · I wanted to start off with a question

13· ·for Dr. Saffarini, and that had to do with a video

14· ·that we say yesterday that I think you personally

15· ·took, and that showed a fair amount of water leakage

16· ·at the Dollarama store?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Would it be your evidence that

19· ·that leakage was not based at all on the collapse?

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So if the collapse had not

22· ·occurred, you would have expected the Dollarama to

23· ·have been leaking like that?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That would be my

25· ·opinion, yes.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I'd like to talk a bit about the

·2· ·rate of corrosion.· I know Mr. Outerbridge touched

·3· ·on that earlier, and this may be the bailiwick of

·4· ·Mr. Dinovitzer, but what I have heard is that --

·5· ·what you are proposing is that it is a linear line,

·6· ·that it is increasing at about -- what -- 0.01

·7· ·millimetre?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) 0.1.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·0.1 millimetre a year?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) The -- it is a

11· ·simplification to -- to assume that it is going

12· ·linear.· It is just a way of picturing it; there --

13· ·there are variations in this.

14· · · · · · · · · So we don't -- we don't know all of

15· ·the details to be able to say exactly the process,

16· ·so it's, on average, 0.1 millimetres per year.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I guess I am just wondering

18· ·about the average, because I understand where this

19· ·comes from is, initially, some tests done on

20· ·ballasts in ships; is that what you said yesterday?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) The 0.1

22· ·millimetres, we're -- we compare it to the rate of

23· ·corrosion on ship structures.· You are correct.· But

24· ·that was initially calculated from the remaining

25· ·cross-section of the structural members on site, so

·1· ·if we took the remaining geometry, subtracted the

·2· ·original, the difference divided by the duration of

·3· ·time gets us to the 0.1 millimetres per year.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And that was the same as the --

·5· ·I think that quantified it?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) As what

·7· ·you'd -- what you'd see on a ship.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But the only way you are

·9· ·arriving at that is by taking the number and

10· ·dividing it by the number of years?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Yes.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And wouldn't you agree with me

13· ·that in order for that to be accurate, there would

14· ·need to be constants?

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) You are going

16· ·to have to clarify "constants."

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) What do you

19· ·mean by "constants"?

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, there would have be to be

21· ·a number of constants, things staying the same over

22· ·this period of time, so that the rate stays the

23· ·same.· Like in a ballast, where you would have water

24· ·and temperature relatively constant all the way

25· ·through; would you agree with me?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) And that's --

·2· ·and that's part of what I'm talking about.· There

·3· ·will be variations with time, but what we're taking

·4· ·about is we know how much something has changed.

·5· · · · · · · · · Say, for instance, you were traveling

·6· ·from one city to the next, and you knew how long it

·7· ·took to get there and you knew the distance.· You

·8· ·could come up with an average velocity -- well,

·9· ·average speed.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But I may have gone the first 10

11· ·miles --

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Faster or --

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- at 10 miles an hour, and gone

14· ·the last 10 miles at 80 miles an hour?

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Yes.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·If you just divide, what --

17· ·that's not going to be accurate at all, is it?

18· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· It's just an

19· ·average?

20· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· (Mr. Dinovitzer) It's

21· ·an average.

22· · · · · · · · · BY MR. KEARNS:

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Just an average.

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) It's an

25· ·average.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·What I'm wondering is, though,

·2· ·in something like this, whether or not that average

·3· ·is reliable.· Because what you have is water coming

·4· ·down, different times of the year --

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Yes.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- in different amounts,

·7· ·different temperatures, different salinity.

·8· · · · · · · · · How is it possible to take all of

·9· ·those variables and say:· Let's supply a linear

10· ·equation to that?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Agreed.· I --

12· ·it is -- in reality, we know it's not linear, but as

13· ·a practical matter, we -- we do not know the

14· ·minute-by-minute condition of each connection, to be

15· ·able to come up with a very detailed assessment of

16· ·the instantaneous corrosion rates, if that's...

17· · · · · · · · · (Dr. Saffarini) We had corroborated

18· ·this kind of formula.· And, again, just to

19· ·emphasize, this is obviously not prevalent and not

20· ·something that you can say that this is how each and

21· ·every member had deteriorated.

22· · · · · · · · · In fact, in the same failed

23· ·connection, you could see the connection on the

24· ·other side of the same column that had not

25· ·deteriorated at this rate.· So that is to qualify

·1· ·that, yes, every spot has its own peculiarity,

·2· ·but -- particularity, rather.

·3· · · · · · · · · But what we had looked at is that by

·4· ·looking at Trow's observations, and there were

·5· ·numerous locations of rust commencement, so rust had

·6· ·already kind of exhausted the coating and is eating

·7· ·away at the metal.

·8· · · · · · · · · Then we have another report by -- by

·9· ·Halsall, which quotes size of corrosion product.

10· · · · · · · · · So we are saying that we have put

11· ·this hypothetical linear line just as a reference

12· ·to -- to kind of visualize how the -- the corrosion

13· ·was ongoing from a period of time that is early on,

14· ·in the '90s, and that, in fact, there are some signs

15· ·to corroborate this average rate.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But the Commission will hear

17· ·evidence about, perhaps, varying amounts of water

18· ·going through the roof, depending on the maintenance

19· ·regimen and schedule that the owners are applying.

20· · · · · · · · · That is something that would affect

21· ·this corrosion rate, wouldn't it?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, but the

23· ·implication that -- you know, that a little water is

24· ·acceptable, a lot of water is not, this is what

25· ·we're -- yes, there could have been, at times --

·1· ·say, there was an initial repair that had halted

·2· ·most of the water, and the rate of corrosion could

·3· ·have been reduced, possibly, during the dryness

·4· ·period, but then other times that the water had

·5· ·coming -- we don't get into these details in this

·6· ·analysis.

·7· · · · · · · · · That is a separate analysis of what

·8· ·kind of waterproofing system was being done and how

·9· ·successful, et cetera, but as far as the model is

10· ·concerned, it is a very basic simplification that is

11· ·helpful just to put a timeline.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The only other thing -- and then

13· ·I'll move on from this -- but it was something that

14· ·you had started to answer in your question to

15· ·Mr. Outerbridge, and that was the sense that perhaps

16· ·with rusting, corrosion, it tends to increase over

17· ·time, that the more rust and corrosion there is, the

18· ·faster it starts.

19· · · · · · · · · Now, we heard about the film and I'll

20· ·let you talk about the film, but it seems to me what

21· ·you were talking about is, A, as the surface itself

22· ·starts to weaken -- and you talked, I think, about

23· ·stretching -- you are going to be exposing more of

24· ·the surface to the air and the water.

25· · · · · · · · · And that's going to be speeding up

·1· ·the process; isn't that true?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) That is, but

·3· ·there are a variety of factors that influence the

·4· ·rate of corrosion.

·5· · · · · · · · · One of them is this deformation of

·6· ·the corroded surface, as you -- as you point out,

·7· ·and when we -- when we took measurements, as was

·8· ·presented in the report, you will see that the --

·9· ·the amount of wastage, the thickness reduction, is

10· ·not uniform.· So we know even at the single

11· ·structural location, the rate of corrosion differs

12· ·at -- at the location.

13· · · · · · · · · So what we're left with, to

14· ·understand the rate at which the -- the capacity of

15· ·the structural connection has decreased, is coming

16· ·up with a -- with an average, and that's -- that's

17· ·what -- that's what we've done.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And I understand that. I

19· ·understand the average part, but is it true that the

20· ·more things rust, the faster they rust?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) No, actually.· Can I

22· ·comment on that?

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Sure?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) So there are two --

25· ·it can be either way around.· It can be either way

·1· ·around.· So in some cases, you know, once you have a

·2· ·corrosion product, it prevent the access of oxygen

·3· ·and also moisture, and reduce the rate of corrosion.

·4· · · · · · · · · So it depends on the specific

·5· ·situation, and it's very localized phenomenon.· So

·6· ·basically from location to location, we know at one

·7· ·location you may have acceleration in the rate of

·8· ·corrosion; other location, like one metre, like,

·9· ·away, you may have other -- actually the opposite

10· ·action, so a reduction in corrosion rate.

11· · · · · · · · · It is a very, very localized

12· ·phenomenon, you can characterize it, yeah.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I had a number of questions for

14· ·you on the state of the building in 1998 and '99

15· ·when Halsall looked at it, but Ms. Carr took you

16· ·very well to that point.

17· · · · · · · · · And it appears that -- what I

18· ·understand you are saying -- is that in 1999, from

19· ·what you can gather, this structure was still in

20· ·fine enough shape that it could have taken a proper

21· ·waterproofing system, which may have protected it

22· ·well into the future; is that fair to say?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, I think --

24· ·but especially considering what you -- the point

25· ·that you have just made and that we answered to, the

·1· ·fact that there is variability, that we are -- in

·2· ·our opinion, yes, we believe that within the

·3· ·timeline of corrosion that we have established and

·4· ·within the observations made by Halsall at the time,

·5· ·it seems reasonable to assume that, at that time,

·6· ·the -- the building would have survived a -- a

·7· ·natural life, had the waterproofing been applied to

·8· ·it properly.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And you talked to Ms. Carr,

10· ·though, about that there is enough information

11· ·available to Halsall in '98 and 1999, or to the

12· ·owner, that would have set up alarms at this point?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.· Yes.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, are those alarms that the

15· ·engineers should be bringing to the attention of the

16· ·owner?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Because here's the situation as

19· ·I see it.· People confuse a bit the Halsall Report

20· ·with the Trow Reports and the later reports, because

21· ·the Halsall Report is a due diligence report.

22· · · · · · · · · Retirement Living does not own the

23· ·building at this point; they're asking the engineer

24· ·to have a look at this building, to decide whether

25· ·or not they should have bought it -- should buy it?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) We understand

·2· ·that.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So what -- I think what you're

·4· ·saying is, properly done, Halsall should have said

·5· ·something like:· Guys, you need to know that if you

·6· ·buy this building, you're going to have to

·7· ·immediately spend a lot of money to put on a

·8· ·waterproofing system and a wear course, and if you

·9· ·don't do that, the building will continue to

10· ·deteriorate.

11· · · · · · · · · Is that the kind of an alarm you

12· ·would have expected to have got in a due diligence

13· ·report from Halsall in 1999?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Can we just have a look at

16· ·Exhibit No. 741, please?

17· · · · · · · · · This is a letter.· It's also in the

18· ·actual Halsall first report.· It talks about all of

19· ·the things that they are recommending be done in

20· ·between the '98 report and the '99 report.

21· · · · · · · · · In the '98 report they say:· We don't

22· ·have enough information.· We need to know more about

23· ·the chloride in the core slabs.

24· · · · · · · · · And they go on here to say:· These

25· ·are the other things that we should look at.

·1· · · · · · · · · At some point, it may be that the

·2· ·Commissioner will be looking at what is an

·3· ·appropriate protocol for a structural engineer to be

·4· ·using to provide a report to either an owner or a

·5· ·prospective owner with respect to a building like

·6· ·this.

·7· · · · · · · · · Can you review those items and let me

·8· ·know whether or not you think that is an appropriate

·9· ·list of items?· Are there things there that don't

10· ·need to be there?· Or are there things there that

11· ·are -- are there things that aren't there that

12· ·should be there?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I mean, they, in

14· ·particular, talk about inspect the condition of the

15· ·supporting structural steel beam.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, actually:

18· · · · · · · · · · "... structural steel beam

19· · · · · · · · · lateral restraint connections to

20· · · · · · · · · the precast slabs."

21· · · · · · · · · They...

22· · · · · · · · · · "Inspect condition of beam and

23· · · · · · · · · bracing connections."

24· · · · · · · · · Yeah, they do that in the -- in the

25· ·last one, the condition of the beam and the bracing

·1· ·connections.

·2· · · · · · · · · So basically, I mean, they're --

·3· ·they're saying that this needs to be inspected.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I realize that.· My question is

·5· ·just much more general than that.

·6· · · · · · · · · Is this an appropriate menu for

·7· ·engineers to be referring to, in what they need to

·8· ·do when looking at a building like the Algo Mall?

·9· ·The Algo --

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I don't know if

11· ·I understand that question.· As in:· Is this an

12· ·exhaustive enough list of protocol to be done or

13· ·executed, as you inspect the building?

14· · · · · · · · · This is, perhaps, a proposal that

15· ·would then be elaborated on.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But I understand that for

17· ·bridges, there is a protocol.· You have to do this,

18· ·this, this, this and this; is that right?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yeah.· That --

20· ·that only speaks to -- as to how you conduct the

21· ·inspection.

22· · · · · · · · · However, the fact that you would

23· ·conduct an inspection would be -- what you would

24· ·state to your potential client is that you would

25· ·say:· I want to inspect the steel.

·1· · · · · · · · · How you go about the details of how

·2· ·you inspect the steel may be deferred to the report,

·3· ·where you would then include the methodology of how

·4· ·you go about doing that and so on.

·5· · · · · · · · · I -- I'm not sure I understand where

·6· ·this is going, and how -- you know, what the

·7· ·question that is being asked.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I'm just -- perhaps the other --

·9· ·it seems to -- I know you're not getting it,

10· ·Dr. Saffarini.

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yeah, maybe I'm

12· ·not getting it.· Maybe --

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·No, and everybody else is

14· ·getting it.

15· · · · · · · · · What I understand is with bridges,

16· ·when you do a report, it says:· Do this, this, this,

17· ·this, this and this.· And you have to do those in

18· ·order to put your stamp on it, and that's what you

19· ·do for bridges.

20· · · · · · · · · I'm just wondering is -- there isn't

21· ·such a thing for buildings, I understand, and

22· ·whether or not what they said set out here makes

23· ·sense as an appropriate menu for that to include?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yeah.· That

25· ·seems reasonable.

·1· · · · · · · · · (Dr. Ghods) Just getting back to

·2· ·bridge inspection, what they usually do, they do the

·3· ·visual inspection first.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Mm-hmm?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Every two years, and

·6· ·if there is a -- like, an alarm, or based on the

·7· ·annual, for example, more than 20 percent,

·8· ·10 percent section loss, they prepare a report.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) But they need to

11· ·take action.· So the next action is that for

12· ·detailed condition assessment, they hire another

13· ·engineering firm to do the detailed condition

14· ·assessment.

15· · · · · · · · · And basically what they do, they look

16· ·at the -- you know, in details, and they take

17· ·samples, they do destructive tests, all those

18· ·things, and prepare recommendation for repair if

19· ·it's required, or retrofitting, all those things.

20· · · · · · · · · So basically it is a step-by-step

21· ·process.

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, thank you for that.

23· · · · · · · · · You will see here that they said,

24· ·Halsall said that they should inspect the condition

25· ·of the beams and bracing connections.· And you've

·1· ·said, clearly, that you don't have any evidence that

·2· ·that was ever done.

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) There was

·4· ·nothing that in was in the report that mentioned

·5· ·connections.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And I guess just as a matter of

·7· ·practice, the evidence that we had from Halsall in

·8· ·that regard, was that, yes, they did that, and

·9· ·because everything was fine, they didn't put

10· ·anything in their report about it?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yeah, and I

12· ·cannot disagree with that.· I mean, that would --

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But is that -- okay. I

14· ·understand.

15· · · · · · · · · But is that an appropriate way for

16· ·the engineer to be reporting to the owner, to the

17· ·client, with respect to the work that they've done?

18· · · · · · · · · Mr. Hodgson had some difficulty with

19· ·you yesterday.· He thought you should have picked up

20· ·the phone and called Halsall and asked them whether

21· ·they'd actually done it.

22· · · · · · · · · Shouldn't it have -- be in the

23· ·report, if they did it?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, as you can

25· ·see in retrospect, these reports last for a

·1· ·lifetime.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Mm-hmm?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) So basically,

·4· ·you -- you -- what you report, it records the state

·5· ·and the condition of the building at that time.· And

·6· ·if the condition was pristine, then say:· It was

·7· ·perfect.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Mm-hmm?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) If -- you don't

10· ·say:· I didn't report it because it was good.

11· · · · · · · · · So, basically, yes.· And typically --

12· ·and even by what we see from Halsall and others,

13· ·what they typically view and they find to be

14· ·acceptable, they comment on and say that they --

15· ·typically:· It is acceptable.

16· · · · · · · · · That would be our impression.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So we should have expected in

18· ·their report --

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) We would have

20· ·expected that, yeah.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·What we have here when I'm

22· ·talking about the rout and seal is three different

23· ·schools of thought.

24· · · · · · · · · We have the Halsall school of

25· ·thought, which is:· Get it done professionally.

·1· ·Qualified contractors.· Do regular maintenance.

·2· ·This system will work and it will last you for 10

·3· ·years.· That's what their report says.

·4· · · · · · · · · The middle position is taken by

·5· ·Mr. Dell'Aquilla from Trow.· You will remember Trow

·6· ·gives those same two options.· They don't recommend

·7· ·the rout and seal, but it's still there.· And what

·8· ·Mr. Dell'Aquilla said was, although he stuck by it

·9· ·as an option, he certainly didn't recommend it, and

10· ·said that it was going to be a short-term solution.

11· ·So that's kind of the middle ground.

12· · · · · · · · · And then we have NORR, that says that

13· ·such a proposal would be unacceptable, and that's

14· ·joined by Mr. Iamonaco, who was the engineer with

15· ·Mr. Dell'Aquilla, who did that report, who, at

16· ·evidence here, said that to do the rout and seal was

17· ·simply chasing cracks, a waste of money, improper,

18· ·and said that the only reason he had put it in as an

19· ·option was to convince them not to do it.· So he

20· ·joins with what I understand your position.

21· · · · · · · · · How do we, as non-engineers,

22· ·reconcile these three different positions as to what

23· ·could have been done in 1999 to properly protect

24· ·this roof?

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I think this --

·1· ·this solution, even where it has been reported -- I

·2· ·cannot recollect where the article was -- in terms

·3· ·of this solution being a kind of a revolutionary

·4· ·solution at the time, this sealing, the fact that it

·5· ·is revolutionary by definition means that it is

·6· ·experimental, because that means that it was not

·7· ·there before and we don't see it there now, so it

·8· ·was an experimental and the experiment failed.

·9· · · · · · · · · So basically we -- when we -- we have

10· ·to -- not to give too much credit to NORR, we have

11· ·more hindsight than -- than most others.· We have

12· ·the advantage of viewing the system in -- in its

13· ·progress, and then its failings and so on.

14· · · · · · · · · We can explain why it would fail; we

15· ·understand why it would fail.· And the simple fact

16· ·is that if you have -- and we start with that first

17· ·erroneous premise that Peterson started with, in

18· ·underestimating the cracking of the -- of the

19· ·concrete and basically having the limited joints

20· ·that they did, and then them and others chasing

21· ·after those cracks and trying to -- to seal them.

22· · · · · · · · · The fact of the matter is that when

23· ·you do not have a joint that is properly prepared

24· ·and you're just trying to seal a crack that is

25· ·moving irregularly, and then you have the

·1· ·temperature difference between one season and

·2· ·another, when you would typically be doing the

·3· ·sealing in -- in the warmer weather because that's

·4· ·only when you can do it, and then when it is

·5· ·wintertime, when it is the severest condition, when

·6· ·the structure contracts the most and the cracks open

·7· ·the most, you cannot access them to seal them

·8· ·properly.

·9· · · · · · · · · So you -- you end up this situation

10· ·where they then open, and then they make the -- a

11· ·path for water to penetrate through the building.

12· · · · · · · · · So that's a long answer to your

13· ·question, I guess.

14· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Are you nearly

15· ·finished, Mr. Kearns?

16· · · · · · · · · MR. KEARNS:· Just two more questions.

17· · · · · · · · · BY MR. KEARNS:

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Mr. Hughes, yesterday

19· ·Dr. Saffarini almost deferred to you on this,

20· ·because you are the envelope guy, you are the

21· ·architect.

22· · · · · · · · · What are your thoughts?· Is this --

23· ·the system proposed by Halsall, could that have

24· ·worked?

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Halsall recommended

·1· ·two options, did they not?

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· Sure.· The rout and seal

·3· ·one, their recommended one?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) In my opinion,

·5· ·routing and sealing of cracks and a sealer being

·6· ·applied to the concrete is not an acceptable

·7· ·solution for waterproofing a roof.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I would not

10· ·consider it to be useable in any sense.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·One last --

12· · · · · · · · · MR. KEARNS:· Oh, I'm past.· Okay.· We

13· ·have to come back anyway.

14· · · · · · · · · I just have will have one question

15· ·when I come back, Mr. Commissioner.

16· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Okay.

17· · · · · · · · · MR. KEARNS:· So I think it would be

18· ·an appropriate time for lunch.

19· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Let's break for lunch.

20· ·Be back here at 2:00 o'clock.

21· · · · · · · · · --- LUNCHEON RECESS AT 12:50 P.M.

22· · · · · · · · · --- RESUMED AT 2:00 P.M.

23· · · · · · · · · MR. KEARNS:· Good afternoon,

24· ·Mr. Commissioner.· Good afternoon, gentlemen.

25· · · · · · · · · The last document I want to show you

·1· ·is the one that you've produced for today.

·2· · · · · · · · · And Ms. Kuka, it is Exhibit No. 5159.

·3· ·And the page I'm looking at has the number 42 at the

·4· ·bottom.

·5· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· This one?

·6· · · · · · · · · MR. KEARNS:· That's the one.

·7· · · · · · · · · BY MR. KEARNS:

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You will see the two critical

·9· ·condition red marks at the bottom right-hand corner.

10· ·Are those -- those are interior connections?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Those locations

12· ·were in the Dollarama where we had inspected and

13· ·those were within the beam itself, at that point.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, now the -- so aside from

15· ·those two, and the one just to the left of the

16· ·failure -- failed connection, those are the only --

17· ·are those the only critical condition observations

18· ·that are actually in the interior of the mall?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, I mean, if

20· ·you can see, if you were to count 1, 2, 3, 4, are in

21· ·the interior and, again, the reason why there are

22· ·more numerous ones which are on the outside, is

23· ·simply that the walkway had endured a rougher time,

24· ·it seems, in terms of the amount of deterioration.

25· ·So the many critical that you see otherwise, to the

·1· ·left, and along the walkway, are -- those ones are

·2· ·in the walkway, but there is no correlation as to

·3· ·being more to the interior than to the exterior.

·4· · · · · · · · · I mean, even by looking at this, if

·5· ·you take out the walkway, you will see that the

·6· ·critical are there, regardless of whether they are

·7· ·within or outside, up to the perimeter, I mean.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·One of the things that you

·9· ·gentlemen won't be aware of, probably, is that the

10· ·Commission has spent a lot of time talking about

11· ·leaks at the library.· I think because there's a

12· ·better record of it, but also the library has very

13· ·serious long-term leaking problems and it's a bit

14· ·surprising to not see more poor, severe connections

15· ·in that area.

16· · · · · · · · · Is that -- might that be because

17· ·those weren't checked or is it --

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I don't know

19· ·that when you say that is severe.· We are showing

20· ·them as severe, I mean, don't underestimate the fact

21· ·that they are shown as severe, and yet not shown as

22· ·critical, to mean that they are not severe.

23· · · · · · · · · And you can see the library, you can

24· ·see two conditions that are severe.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So those are both in the

·1· ·library?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, it looked to me like --

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, these are in

·5· ·the library.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The far left one was B7, but if

·7· ·not, both of those are in the library?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, the last question I have

10· ·for you is, we haven't heard much evidence at all,

11· ·at the Commission, about water infiltration at the

12· ·spot where the failed connection occurs -- occurred.

13· · · · · · · · · We just -- I don't know if there's

14· ·a reason for that.· Do you have any opinion or

15· ·hypothesis as to why that particular spot was the

16· ·one that failed?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I think we make

18· ·a number of observations to correlate the failure

19· ·with the location.· I think we quote evidence of

20· ·leakage in this area, if I'm not mistaken, 1985,

21· ·somewhere in the early '80s, so we -- there is some

22· ·record, I believe, of leakage in that area.

23· · · · · · · · · The other thing is that we suggest

24· ·that perhaps the amount of de-icing that was

25· ·exercised in that area which was heavily treaded,

·1· ·because it's at the entrance of the mall and the

·2· ·entrance of the hotel at the same time, so perhaps

·3· ·there could have been a higher level of de-icing, so

·4· ·that was applied over there.

·5· · · · · · · · · So we kind of give some possible

·6· ·explanations, the fact that it is close to the

·7· ·expansion joint is a fact that we had considered how

·8· ·the water would have trickled from the expansion

·9· ·joint and to that point is not clear, so we cannot

10· ·say that that is a definite reason, but in all

11· ·cases, I mean, there are particularities of how

12· ·corrosion occurs, because water tends to have, you

13· ·know, an unpredictable way of finding its way to the

14· ·structure and if there is an easier path, it would

15· ·have taken it.

16· · · · · · · · · And apparently, for instance, the

17· ·easier path for the eastern side of that column,

18· ·while the western side of the column which is, you

19· ·know, when you're looking at the overall picture,

20· ·this is right at the spot and yet you get one side

21· ·of the column that was not corroded, one side that

22· ·was corroded.· So it is difficult to try and pin it

23· ·to a specific reason, but there are kind of -- kind

24· ·of reasoning that can be argued and we have put that

25· ·in the report.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, I guess the last point is:

·2· ·What's I think so surprising at least to me, and

·3· ·probably to many other people, is that Mr. Yakimov

·4· ·was somehow able to identify this area as being

·5· ·a danger point, I believe, in 2009.

·6· · · · · · · · · Is there something about the way that

·7· ·the core slabs and the steel are arranged in this

·8· ·area, that led it to be more susceptible to failure

·9· ·and for the sounds and vibrations that he talked

10· ·about?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yeah, we have

12· ·given this considerable thought and this thought

13· ·process is reflected in the report.

14· · · · · · · · · Now, Mr. Yakimov is not an engineer,

15· ·and his testimony and whatever was conveyed to us by

16· ·transcript depositions from Mr. Yakimov give us some

17· ·indication of his concern.· We took that very

18· ·seriously.· We looked at that point.

19· · · · · · · · · The concern that Mr. Yakimov had was

20· ·with sound that he had heard of vehicles travelling

21· ·over the presumed location, not necessarily at the

22· ·exact location, but in that area.· And there was

23· ·some sort of sound that was heard.

24· · · · · · · · · And we conclude that there would be

25· ·a number of possibilities of why that could have

·1· ·been what Mr. Yakimov has heard, but there are

·2· ·reports from 1992 of de-bonded slabs, that basically

·3· ·would have curled as in would have become uneven in

·4· ·the surface and as a result, when a vehicle

·5· ·travelled on top, would have bent under the weight

·6· ·of the vehicle, and then would have rebounded and

·7· ·produced some noise, and I think there was even the

·8· ·effort that was done to epoxy these areas and so on.

·9· · · · · · · · · There was another explanation that

10· ·was given by another architect, Clinckett, in

11· ·particular, which was demarking of the precast

12· ·slabs.· And finally there is the possibility that

13· ·there was some failure that was in the steel, that

14· ·would have been the cause of this sound.

15· · · · · · · · · In reflecting on it, and in fact, in

16· ·pursuing some forensic evidence, so we asked BMT to

17· ·look for signs of any kind of scratching of the

18· ·surface that would have been consistent with such

19· ·an area of movement and no such signs were found.

20· ·The fact that this is a prevalent problem all over

21· ·the roof, led us to believe that that is completely

22· ·or highly unlikely that this would be as a result of

23· ·some sort of partial failure in that area.

24· · · · · · · · · So, in brief, yes, these were

25· ·interesting that they were reported by Yakimov, but

·1· ·we cannot associate what he had heard with the

·2· ·ultimate failure at that point.

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. KEARNS:· Very good.· Thank you

·4· ·very much, gentlemen.

·5· · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DELGADO:

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Good afternoon, gentlemen.

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Good afternoon.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·My name is Mario Delgado.· I am

·9· ·one of the lawyers for James Keywan.

10· · · · · · · · · Dr. Saffarini, I understand that you

11· ·were team leader on the forensic investigation; is

12· ·that correct?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And what did that involve, being

15· ·team leader?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, basically,

17· ·I was the project manager by the terminology of

18· ·engineers, so I was the project manager for this

19· ·as a project.

20· · · · · · · · · I was the chief forensic engineer on

21· ·this, as in I led the team and I wrote a substantial

22· ·part of the report.

23· · · · · · · · · MR. DELGADO:· Okay, Ms. Kuka, can

24· ·you -- I don't believe this has been made

25· ·an exhibit.· It's file NL2275.

·1· · · · · · · · · I'd just like to show you a document

·2· ·produced by NORR.· This is your initial statement of

·3· ·opinion.· If I can take you to page 2 of 4,

·4· ·subparagraph 3.1, the heading is "The Team".

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, yes.

·6· · · · · · · · · BY MR. DELGADO:

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And this document lists a number

·8· ·of individuals.· Is it fair to say that this is

·9· ·an exhaustive list of the individuals who were

10· ·responsible for the final report produced by NORR?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) This is actually

12· ·the list of people who were on -- on site.· That's

13· ·all it means.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) These are the

16· ·people who went to site between the period of July

17· ·22nd and July 29th.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And my question is this: Are

19· ·these the -- is this an exhaustive list of the

20· ·individuals who had an input into the final report

21· ·or are there other members who were not listed on

22· ·this list who may have had a contribution to the

23· ·final report?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, for

25· ·instance, you will see that Mr. Dinovitzer is not

·1· ·included in this, so he obviously was a contributor

·2· ·to the report, but he was not present.· His team

·3· ·were -- members were not present, NRC was not

·4· ·present and they contributed and we had petrographic

·5· ·analysis done and the individual concerned is not

·6· ·included.

·7· · · · · · · · · So these are the people who were on

·8· ·site.· That is all that is describing.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And I guess what I'm

10· ·trying to get at, is it fair to say that the only

11· ·team member in the drafting of the report, who was

12· ·an architect, is Dr. Hughes or were there other

13· ·architects?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I believe that

15· ·this is a fair statement, yes.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So, Dr. Hughes, you were the

17· ·only architect responsible for drafting the report?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) To my knowledge,

19· ·yes.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And there was no other

21· ·member of the team who was licensed to practice

22· ·architecture in the Province of Ontario; is that

23· ·fair to say?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) You mean other

25· ·than Dr. Hughes?

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Other than Dr. Hughes.

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And so you would agree, Dr.

·4· ·Hughes, that as part of the team, you were the only

·5· ·person qualified to provide an opinion as it related

·6· ·to architectural matters?

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Dr. Saffarini, yesterday and

·9· ·today, more particularly yesterday, you were asked

10· ·to confirm that you were not criticizing the work

11· ·performed by Halsall and you also confirmed that you

12· ·weren't criticising anybody for that matter, that

13· ·you were not here to criticize anybody.

14· · · · · · · · · I'm just quoting you from yesterday;

15· ·is that a fair statement?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is a true

17· ·statement, yes.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So is it fair to say that as far

19· ·as NORR is concerned, the purpose of the report is

20· ·not to cast blame on the parties involved in the

21· ·design. construction or inspection of the

22· ·Algo Centre Mall?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I think you are

24· ·quoting us, yes.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So in drafting the NORR Report,

·1· ·NORR did not review documentation for the purposes

·2· ·of commenting on whether any particular party failed

·3· ·to carry out their duties; is that fair to say?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, only in --

·5· ·yes, that is a fair statement, yes.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And Dr. Hughes, would you agree

·7· ·with that?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) At a high-level,

·9· ·yes, I would agree with that.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, you qualified that.· In

11· ·what sense would you not agree with that statement?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Well, I understand

13· ·where you're going with this line of questioning,

14· ·which would be my final statement on the design

15· ·review.· However, we are not here to cast blame on

16· ·individuals, but we do have a -- we are compelled to

17· ·report on our findings.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Fair enough.· So my question

19· ·was: In drafting the NORR Report -- and let's leave

20· ·it at that -- did -- your hand in drafting the

21· ·NORR Report, did you review documentations for the

22· ·purposes of commenting on whether any particular

23· ·party failed to carry out its duties?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes, if the -- if

25· ·I found evidence or had a professional opinion as to

·1· ·whether some of the documentation or evidence we had

·2· ·reviewed was not in compliance with any sort of

·3· ·codes or standards of practice, that would have made

·4· ·itself clear in the report.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so I can take it from

·6· ·your statement that we can expect, if there is blame

·7· ·that is being assigned to any given party, that the

·8· ·report will set out the relevant information that

·9· ·was considered and provide the reasons for reaching

10· ·that opinion; is that fair to say?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I think the report

12· ·does a very good job of illustrating all parties

13· ·that were involved and their level of

14· ·responsibilities.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So I'll take that as a "yes"?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And you are a member of

18· ·the Ontario Association of Architects; is that

19· ·correct?

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I am.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And when did you obtain your

22· ·license to practice architecture in Ontario?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I believe that was

24· ·in 2009.

25· · · · · · · · · MR. DELGADO:· Ms. Kuka, can I call up

·1· ·the NORR Report, Exhibit 3007, I believe.· And if

·2· ·you could turn to page 358.

·3· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· Do you want to make this

·4· ·last document an exhibit, the one that is up on the

·5· ·screen?

·6· · · · · · · · · MR. DELGADO:· Oh, yes.· May we make

·7· ·it an exhibit.

·8· · · · · · · · · MS. KUKA:· Exhibit No. 5192.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · · EXHIBIT NO.· 5192:· Document

10· · · · · · · · · · ·No. NL2275, listing a number of

11· · · · · · · · · · ·members of the Engineering team.

12· · · · · · · · · BY MR. DELGADO:

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So, I'm looking at the final

14· ·NORR Report, page 58.· This is subheading 4, "Review

15· ·of Design".

16· · · · · · · · · So as I understand it, by looking at

17· ·the report, the findings and opinions expressed as

18· ·they relate to the architectural design of the

19· ·Algo Centre Mall can be found at section 4.1,

20· ·"Building Envelope", which span pages 58 to 67; is

21· ·that correct?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And so am I correct to say that

24· ·under section 4.1 of the report, you state:

25· · · · · · · · · · "All relevant documentation

·1· · · · · · · · · that you reviewed and all

·2· · · · · · · · · material findings in support of

·3· · · · · · · · · your opinions and conclusions

·4· · · · · · · · · ..."?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Could you rephrase

·6· ·that question?

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Sure.· So when I take a look at

·8· ·4.1, "Building Envelope", and the subsections

·9· ·underneath that, that span to page 67, can I --

10· ·would I be accurate in saying that in those

11· ·sections, you state:

12· · · · · · · · · · "All the relevant

13· · · · · · · · · documentation and all material

14· · · · · · · · · findings that you rely on to

15· · · · · · · · · support your opinions and

16· · · · · · · · · conclusions ..."?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes, my complete

18· ·review of the design is in that section.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And am I correct to say

20· ·that you have not left out any relevant

21· ·documentation or material facts that would support

22· ·your opinions and conclusions from this section?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That's a fair

24· ·statement.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And therefore, I can conclude

·1· ·that there is nothing outside of this section that

·2· ·is relevant or material to support the findings,

·3· ·opinions and conclusions that you draw, as it

·4· ·relates to the architectural drawings of the

·5· ·Algo Centre Mall?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Any evidence that

·7· ·would have been brought forward in this Commission,

·8· ·for instance, I would not have had the benefit of

·9· ·during the time of the writing of this report.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Sorry, and just to qualify that

11· ·question, any documentation that was provided to

12· ·you, that you thought that was relevant, you

13· ·included in the report?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Is it fair to say that the

16· ·opinions and conclusions you reach in the final

17· ·NORR Report have not changed from when the day you

18· ·authored that report to today?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No, my opinions

20· ·have not materially changed.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, Dr. Saffarini was asked

22· ·yesterday whether he had any personal experience

23· ·with respect to the practice of engineering in 1978

24· ·and he confirmed that he didn't.

25· · · · · · · · · So similarly, I'll ask you, given

·1· ·that you only received your certificate to practice

·2· ·in 2009 --

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Sorry, that's

·4· ·not --

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And graduate --

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Sorry, that's --

·7· ·sorry, certificate of practice is not what you are

·8· ·asking me.· You are asking me if I had a license.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Sorry, license to practice, 2009

10· ·and you graduated in 1995; am I correct to say that

11· ·you do not have any personal experience with the --

12· ·with respect to the practice of architecture between

13· ·the period of 1975 and 1981?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That's a fair

15· ·statement, yes.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So, yesterday you

17· ·testified that -- I'll try to quote you as much as

18· ·I can -- that the review of the original design

19· ·consisted of obtaining -- of the architectural

20· ·drawings from James Keywan Architect, along with

21· ·some other structural drawings -- I believe you may

22· ·have had some shop drawings you mentioned?

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes, there is.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And that the review of the

25· ·design consisted of looking at the building

·1· ·envelope, primarily the roof, and looking at the

·2· ·code that was in play at the time to see if those

·3· ·documents were, in fact, compliant with the current

·4· ·Ontario Building Code regulations.

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) To see if there --

·6· ·at the time?

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Complied with the 1975 Ontario

·8· ·Building Code?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That's correct.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So, just in layman's speak, is

11· ·it fair to say that you looked at Mr. Keywan's

12· ·architectural drawings, compared it to the code and

13· ·determined whether or not, in fact, those drawings

14· ·met that standard?

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Generally, yes.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·In your review of the 1975

17· ·Building Code, would you agree with me that there is

18· ·nothing in that code or in any other regulation,

19· ·setting out the extent to which an architect had to

20· ·design in detail, a building or portions of the

21· ·building -- of components of the building --

22· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Go slow -- you are

23· ·just reading and I'm having just a little trouble

24· ·following you.· Perhaps slow down a little bit.

25· · · · · · · · · MR. DELGADO:· I'll slow down on the

·1· ·question.

·2· · · · · · · · · BY MR. DELGADO:

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·In your review of the 1975

·4· ·Ontario Building Code, would you agree with me that

·5· ·there was nothing in that code or in any other

·6· ·regulation, setting out the extent to which

·7· ·an architect had to design and detail a building or

·8· ·portions or components of a building?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The code does not

10· ·list specifics regarding the design and detailing of

11· ·a building, that an architect is responsible for.

12· ·It does, however, contain general language about

13· ·review and building performance.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So you don't dispute the

15· ·statement I just made?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I don't dispute it.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Now, if I may take you to

18· ·page 63 of your report.· Second full paragraph, last

19· ·sentence.· You agree with me that as at the date of

20· ·the final report and even today, as you have

21· ·mentioned that your opinion has not changed, NORR is

22· ·of the opinion that --

23· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· I'm sorry, have we

24· ·got that on screen?

25· · · · · · · · · MR. DELGADO:· I believe --

·1· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Where are you

·2· ·reading from?

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. DELGADO:· Second paragraph, the

·4· ·second full paragraph, "The architectural drawings,"

·5· ·last sentence.

·6· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Okay.

·7· · · · · · · · · BY MR. DELGADO:

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Do you agree with me that you

·9· ·maintain that proposition that's mentioned in the

10· ·last sentence, namely that you are:

11· · · · · · · · · · "Reasonably confident that the

12· · · · · · · · · roof construction conforms to

13· · · · · · · · · part 3 of the Ontario Building

14· · · · · · · · · Code"?

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes, part 3 deals

16· ·with fire protection and life safety measures of the

17· ·Building Code.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, and now turning your

19· ·attention to page 67.

20· · · · · · · · · Section 4.1.6, first sentence, you

21· ·will agree with me that as of the date of the final

22· ·report and even today, NORR maintains the opinion

23· ·that the design of the --

24· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Excuse me, 4.1.6?

25· · · · · · · · · MR. DELGADO:· 4.1.6.

·1· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Where in 4.1.6 are

·2· ·you reading from?

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. DELGADO:· First paragraph, first

·4· ·sentence.

·5· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· "The design"?· All

·6· ·right.· Let me know where you are reading from, just

·7· ·so I can follow you.

·8· · · · · · · · · BY MR. DELGADO:

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, so I'll just summarize the

10· ·question for you.

11· · · · · · · · · You will agree with me that it's your

12· ·position that the original design met part 4 of the

13· ·Ontario Building Code?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I believe the term

15· ·I used was "narrowly".

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Let me just check the wording

17· ·here.

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Second line.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yeah, I agree with you on that.

20· · · · · · · · · You are familiar with the sports term

21· ·being onside versus being offside?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Sure.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And you would agree with me that

24· ·a player, if he's onside, by very definition can't

25· ·be offside?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Okay.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· You're with me so far?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Sure.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Generally speaking, if a design

·5· ·meets the OBC requirements, by that very definition,

·6· ·you can't also say that it doesn't meet them.· That

·7· ·it's -- that that design is in contravention of the

·8· ·OBC?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So borrowing from that

11· ·analogy, you acknowledge that the original design

12· ·was onside of the prevailing Ontario Building Code?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) As I have stated

14· ·before --

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You can't either be -- you are

16· ·either onside or you are not.· And your position

17· ·is --

18· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· You can be

19· ·narrowly onside.

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I can be narrowly

21· ·onside.

22· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· You can be

23· ·narrowly offside.

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I can be just on

25· ·the line.

·1· · · · · · · · · BY MR. DELGADO:

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But it is onside?

·3· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Whether it is

·4· ·onside or it's offside is ...

·5· · · · · · · · · It is like passing or failing law

·6· ·school exams, you can barely make it, but make it,

·7· ·or you can barely not make it or you can come out

·8· ·with flying colours or you can be dead last.

·9· · · · · · · · · MR. DELGADO:· With respect, if you --

10· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· I understand -- we

11· ·all understand the distinction.

12· · · · · · · · · BY MR. DELGADO:

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And you agree with me that it

14· ·was Peterson who provided the waterproofing membrane

15· ·system that was going to go on the parking deck?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And you agree with me or you're

18· ·aware that the owner through Nick Hirt, an engineer,

19· ·retained Peterson to provide this preparatory

20· ·system?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That appears to

22· ·have been the case, yes.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And I think you mentioned this

24· ·earlier and I just want clarification, but you are

25· ·aware that Peterson had its own engineers and own

·1· ·people to provide the owner with drawing details of

·2· ·its proprietary system?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I've only seen what

·4· ·Peterson provided that's been submitted and that is

·5· ·entirely letters and a couple of sketches, as we saw

·6· ·this morning.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You would expect that they would

·8· ·have engineers that would be able to provide the

·9· ·information?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) They held

11· ·themselves out as sealant engineers.· It seems

12· ·reasonable to assume they had engineers on staff.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Fair enough.· And you are aware

14· ·that Mr. Nick Hirt was a licensed engineer and

15· ·a former Chief Plan Examiner with the City of Sault

16· ·Ste. Marie and was in charge of the project on

17· ·behalf of the owner?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I'm aware of that.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And would you agree with me that

20· ·at the time the Algo Centre Mall was designed, there

21· ·was nothing in the Building Code, the Architect's

22· ·Act, the Professional Engineer's Act, which would

23· ·have prevented a licensed engineer from assuming

24· ·responsibility for designing, reviewing and

25· ·approving the installation of a waterproofing

·1· ·system?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) That is correct.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And I would submit to you -- I'm

·4· ·going to make a submission to you and you can -- and

·5· ·then I'm going to ask you a question whether you

·6· ·agree or disagree with the statement, okay?

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Uh-hmm.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·That when the Algo Centre Mall

·9· ·was designed and constructed, it would have been

10· ·acceptable practice for an architect to prepare

11· ·building plans that would suffice for enabling other

12· ·members of the design team to prepare their

13· ·documents for obtaining a building permit, but which

14· ·did not include all the details of features of

15· ·a complete building, if that level of service was

16· ·acceptable to the owner.· In such cases, the

17· ·owner/builder, and its various trades would be

18· ·expected to have sufficient knowledge and experience

19· ·to construct the elements of the building that were

20· ·not detailed by the architect.

21· · · · · · · · · And my question to you is this: Given

22· ·your admission that you have no personal experience

23· ·with the practice of architecture between that time

24· ·period, you will agree with me that you do not have

25· ·any information to disagree with the

·1· ·characterization that I have just mentioned to you?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I'm not sure I have

·3· ·enough information to agree with the

·4· ·characterization you just made.· I would need to

·5· ·know more about the so-called team members, as you

·6· ·put it, on the design team that were expected to

·7· ·produce documents relating to the building of this

·8· ·facility.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· If there were individuals

10· ·who purported that they could carry out the design

11· ·and provide details, the practice at the time, I'm

12· ·suggesting to you, was that the architect can rely

13· ·on that and not provide all the details, because

14· ·they would be provided by other parties.· That's --

15· ·I'm just proposing that that was the practice at the

16· ·time.

17· · · · · · · · · Do you have any reason to doubt that

18· ·was the practice at the time?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I have no reason to

20· ·doubt that that was the practice at the time.

21· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· I'm sorry, sir,

22· ·I didn't hear your answer.

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I have no reason to

24· ·doubt that that was the practice at the time.

25· · · · · · · · · BY MR. DELGADO:

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Thank you.· And we have heard

·2· ·evidence that the design in question was a novel

·3· ·idea at the time.· Do you disagree with that?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) "Novel" is

·5· ·an interesting characterization of it, but --

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·"Novel" as in new.

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) It appears to have

·8· ·been new, yes.· HSP held out that their system had

·9· ·some history, although I've never seen -- I've seen

10· ·no evidence that they had ever used this system on

11· ·an occupied space before.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Now, Mr. Keywan asserted

13· ·that he was not familiar with the system and

14· ·therefore could not provide with -- could not

15· ·provide the owner with meaningful input into such

16· ·design.

17· · · · · · · · · Do you have any evidence to the

18· ·contrary?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, Mr. Keywan also said that

21· ·he didn't provide, specifically, general review for

22· ·the Peterson System.

23· · · · · · · · · Do you have any evidence to the

24· ·contrary?

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I have no evidence

·1· ·that he did not review that system.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, you just finished saying

·3· ·that you have no evidence to his assertion that he

·4· ·was not familiar with the system and could not

·5· ·provide anything meaningful.

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I've seen no

·7· ·documentation that --

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· You haven't --

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) -- Mr. Keywan

10· ·reviewed that system in any way.

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.

12· · · · · · · · · And do you agree with me that at that

13· ·material time, 1978, 1981, that it was not

14· ·a requirement for an architect to do the general

15· ·review of the design?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Not sure I would

17· ·agree with that entirely.· There are provisions in

18· ·the OBC at the time that require an engineer or

19· ·an architect to perform general review.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·An engineer or an architect,

21· ·either one?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And in this case, we already

24· ·know that it's Mr. Nick Hirt who undertook to

25· ·oversee that Peterson System?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The owner?

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The owner, he retained Peterson?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The owner selected

·4· ·Peterson, yes.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes, okay.· Now, Mr. Keywan's

·6· ·evidence was that he did express some reservations

·7· ·to the owner, Nick Hirt, or the owner's

·8· ·representative/builder regarding the placing of

·9· ·a vehicle parking lot on the roof of the mall, but

10· ·that the owner decided that he was going to go ahead

11· ·and do it anyway.

12· · · · · · · · · Do you have any evidence to the

13· ·contrary?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And his evidence was also that

16· ·he made suggestions that if it was going to be

17· ·located on the mall, that perhaps he could put

18· ·a roof canopy on top of the -- on top of that

19· ·structure.

20· · · · · · · · · Do you have any evidence to the

21· ·contrary?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No, I'm --

23· ·I believe I had seen that Mr. Keywan's testimony

24· ·that he had suggested such things, yes.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I believe that was Mr. Keywan's

·1· ·testimony, that Mr. Nick Hirt was going to undertake

·2· ·the design supervision, construction of that

·3· ·Peterson System in the parking lot deck.

·4· · · · · · · · · Do you have any evidence to the

·5· ·contrary?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No, I have no

·7· ·evidence to the contrary.· I think there was

·8· ·a larger question of appropriateness in this matter

·9· ·but ...

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, in the circumstances there,

11· ·what the standards are, that the codes, regulations,

12· ·do not set out the extent to which an architect had

13· ·to design or provide details of a building or

14· ·portions of the components thereof, that the

15· ·regulations, codes, et cetera, did not prevent

16· ·an engineer from assuming that responsibility, and

17· ·where the architect has advised the owner he does

18· ·not have the expertise, and where the architect

19· ·provides alternatives to the location of the parking

20· ·lot, and provides options, if the owner decides to

21· ·put that parking lot there, and where the owner

22· ·nonetheless chooses to proceed with the Peterson

23· ·System; would you agree with me, in those

24· ·circumstances, that it is likely that the owner is

25· ·not going to be relying on the architect to provide

·1· ·them with the necessary details and specifications

·2· ·required for that system?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) From what I have

·4· ·seen, Mr. Keywan was not given the responsibility

·5· ·for that system.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, bearing in mind what

·7· ·I just said about all the things I just listed,

·8· ·would you agree with me that in those circumstances,

·9· ·the owner would be relying upon other individuals,

10· ·such as Peterson or other engineers, for the

11· ·necessary details and specifications to that system?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes, assuming that

13· ·HSP had, in fact, engineers that were licensed and

14· ·were giving advice.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And it's your understanding that

16· ·they were holding themselves out as such?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I can only -- I can

18· ·only make that statement based on what I've seen in

19· ·front of me, which is letters attesting to sealant

20· ·engineers being present at HSP.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I'd like to turn your attention

22· ·to your interim report and I believe that's Exhibit

23· ·No. 119.· Page 19 of 55.· I would put it to you that

24· ·the section in the interim report titled, "Building

25· ·Envelope - Review of Design" is almost identically

·1· ·the same as that of the final report other than you

·2· ·cite new sections of the Ontario Building Code that

·3· ·have come to pass since 1975; is that an accurate

·4· ·statement?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I would -- I can't

·6· ·remember the exact timeframe, but it's a fair

·7· ·statement.· I can't say definitively what the

·8· ·changes were between the interim and the final.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, if I were to take you

10· ·through a couple of pages, I would suggest to you

11· ·that they're almost -- they are identical, even in

12· ·paragraph format.

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Uh-hmm.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Other than you insert sections

15· ·of the -- new sections of the OBC.· Would you like

16· ·to take some time to look at that?· Or would you

17· ·just say that's --

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I'm at your

19· ·disposal on this matter.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Why don't you take -- I don't

21· ·know if you can take a look at them both, but

22· ·I would suggest to you that that's the case.

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Okay.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You wouldn't dispute that?

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I'm not

·1· ·disagreeing.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So you wouldn't dispute

·3· ·that, other than citing those new sections, there is

·4· ·no other new material that you incorporate, that

·5· ·you're aware of?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I would -- I'm not

·7· ·sure I can definitively agree with that.· I mean, we

·8· ·received documentation at several periods along the

·9· ·writing of this report, so how much documentation we

10· ·received between the interim report and the final

11· ·report is a matter I would not be able to speak

12· ·definitively to.

13· · · · · · · · · There may have been some tweaking of

14· ·the language between the interim and the final,

15· ·based on information that we've received

16· ·subsequently.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· But I would submit to you

18· ·that the wording, as to whether or not the

19· ·architectural designs -- I'm going to call it the

20· ·design in general, because you were looking at the

21· ·building envelope design, you kept the same wording

22· ·both in the interim report and in the final report,

23· ·in saying that it met the standard of care or

24· ·narrowly met the standard -- sorry, narrowly met the

25· ·Ontario Building Code with respect to the section 4

·1· ·and conclusively with respect to part 3.

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I'm not going to

·3· ·disagree with that.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And I think throughout

·5· ·your testimony, you've been very consistent in

·6· ·holding that opinion that the design met the Ontario

·7· ·Building Code of the time.· However, you have

·8· ·expressed some concerns about the detail of

·9· ·specifications in the drawings -- sorry, the amount

10· ·of detail in the drawings and the specifications.

11· · · · · · · · · Given your admission that you don't

12· ·really have experience about what the nature of the

13· ·practice was back in 1975, to 1981, it's my

14· ·impression of what you are telling us, that the

15· ·concerns that you raise, is that if you were to be

16· ·working on that project -- if you would have been in

17· ·his shoes, in Mr. Keywan's shoes, you would have

18· ·done things a little bit differently; is that fair

19· ·to say?

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I would hope so.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And is it also fair to say that

22· ·when you make those assertions, that you have the

23· ·benefit of hindsight?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Of course.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, and it's also fair to say

·1· ·that when you're making those assertions, that you

·2· ·have the benefit of receiving training where the

·3· ·standards are higher than what they were back in

·4· ·1975?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I think that's

·6· ·subjective, but, yes, that is more or less accurate.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, so turning your attention

·8· ·to section -- of the final report, so that's Exhibit

·9· ·No. 3007, section 4.1.6.· The last sentence in

10· ·section 4.1.6 reads:

11· · · · · · · · · · "It is NORR's opinion that

12· · · · · · · · · a duty of care required in the

13· · · · · · · · · design and construction of this

14· · · · · · · · · roof was not exercised."

15· · · · · · · · · I note that you have not attributed

16· ·the failure to exercise a duty of care to the

17· ·architect; it's a general statement.· Can this

18· ·sentence be read to mean that whoever is responsible

19· ·for the design and construction of the waterproofing

20· ·system, in your opinion, failed to exercise their

21· ·duty of care?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Inasmuch as the

23· ·responsibility for the building envelope, as

24· ·a whole, fell on Mr. Keywan's shoulders, there is

25· ·some measure of -- there was some duty of care that

·1· ·was not exercised by him individually.· However, as

·2· ·I've not disagreed with, the specification and

·3· ·selection of that waterproofing system fell to

·4· ·Mr. Hirt and HSP, in turn.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, given that you've

·6· ·concluded that the design itself met the 1975

·7· ·Ontario Building Code, and your admission that you

·8· ·have put all the material findings under section 4.1

·9· ·as it relates to the architectural design, your

10· ·admission that your analysis focused on looking at

11· ·the design and then looking at the code, where in

12· ·this report do you say that you define what the duty

13· ·of care is, that was required in the design and

14· ·construction of the roof, which was not exercised?

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The duty of care in

16· ·this case would have been taking into account the

17· ·level of complexity that the program of this roof

18· ·required, which is to serve not only as a roof over

19· ·occupied space, but also as a traffic deck subjected

20· ·to enormous loads and a very harsh environment.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Where do you define the duty in

22· ·your report -- in the section?· Because I didn't see

23· ·it.

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The duty of ...?

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The duty of care that you speak

·1· ·of.

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) "The duty of care"

·3· ·is a term that is used to describe a level of

·4· ·responsibility that a professional brings and it is

·5· ·commensurate upon that person to exercise a duty --

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right, and I appreciate that,

·7· ·but where in that section do you define what that

·8· ·duty and standard is?· Because you've told us that

·9· ·all you did was take a look at the architectural

10· ·drawings and see if they complied with the Ontario

11· ·Building Code.· I don't see a definition of duty of

12· ·care in your report.

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I don't think you

14· ·will find a definition of the term "duty of care" in

15· ·the report.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, I don't see your own

17· ·personal view -- I mean, you say that a duty of care

18· ·was not exercised.· You would think that if it

19· ·was -- this is a material point in your final

20· ·report, you would think that you would define at

21· ·least what your thoughts are of duty of care?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) As I've just

23· ·explained to you, in my opinion, a duty of care

24· ·would have been rising -- raising the level of

25· ·sophistication and durability of this roof to meet

·1· ·the challenges of the program.

·2· · · · · · · · · Let's not forget, Mr. Keywan is

·3· ·a registered professional in the province.· He has

·4· ·a duty of care to protect the public health.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yeah, I appreciate that.· Where

·6· ·in your report, do you define that duty of care?

·7· ·I take it you don't?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I think we've --

·9· ·I think we've covered this ground.

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You don't?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The term "duty of

12· ·care" is not defined in the report.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And your analysis of that

14· ·failure is also not included in that report?

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The analysis of the

16· ·structural failure?

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·No, of the duty of care, the

18· ·failure to exercise it.

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You would agree with me that

21· ·that's a material point in the report?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) The fact that this

23· ·roof was a failure since the get go and is, in some

24· ·measure, reliant upon the design shortcomings for

25· ·that failure, is indicative of the fact that it

·1· ·was -- that -- I mean, that is the result of that

·2· ·duty of care not being present.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, I think what you are

·4· ·doing, with all due respect, perhaps, and you

·5· ·already mentioned this, you have the benefit of

·6· ·hindsight.· You are looking at it from --

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) As do the rest of

·8· ·this panel.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So it's fair to say that your

10· ·criticism comes, in part, from the benefit of

11· ·hindsight?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I can only speak in

13· ·my present terms and review documents of a historic

14· ·nature.· My entire job on this has been hindsight.

15· · · · · · · · · MR. DELGADO:· Well, then, thank you.

16· ·I have no further questions.

17· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Thank you.· Thank

18· ·you.· Mr. Cassan.

19· · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CASSAN:

20· · · · · · · · · MR. CASSAN:· Good afternoon, my name

21· ·is Paul Cassan.· I am counsel for the City of

22· ·Elliot Lake.

23· · · · · · · · · Mr. Kearns was asking you in his

24· ·cross about Mr. Yakimov's statements and I think it

25· ·was Dr. Saffarini, you indicated that you asked BMT

·1· ·to look for some scratching on the surface in that

·2· ·area.· Can you tell us what that meant and what you

·3· ·would expect to find if there was movement in that

·4· ·area or --

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, one

·6· ·hypothesis and then, as -- to be thorough and

·7· ·objective, we had to explore all of the

·8· ·possibilities of, in fact, not as to what happened

·9· ·as in failure, the instantaneous failure, but

10· ·actually what had progressed to the point where

11· ·failure had occurred.

12· · · · · · · · · We had the reports that there was

13· ·some warnings of some sounds being emitted from that

14· ·area.· And, in fact, were reported to the owner and

15· ·then reported to the Chief of Police and so on.· So

16· ·we had to take them seriously --

17· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Can I interject at

18· ·this point, doctor, I'm sorry.· And it is just for

19· ·clarification.

20· · · · · · · · · Was Mr. Yakimov's -- and my memory is

21· ·vague and you can assist me, but was Mr. Yakimov's

22· ·evidence restricted to sounds rather than

23· ·a perception of movement in addition to the sound?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

25· · · · · · · · · MR. CASSAN:· My understanding,

·1· ·Mr. Commissioner, was both, that he said that there

·2· ·was sounds emanating from the area of the eventual

·3· ·collapse and he also indicated that he perceived

·4· ·that he saw movement.

·5· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Right.· And so

·6· ·I think that should be put to Dr. Saffarini in that

·7· ·so far, I think all that we've discussed is

·8· ·perception of sound of some --

·9· · · · · · · · · MR. CASSAN:· Sure.

10· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· -- scratching

11· ·or -- but there was more than that, according to

12· ·Mr. Yakimov.

13· · · · · · · · · MR. CASSAN:· That's right.· And my

14· ·question, Mr. Commissioner, dealt with --

15· ·I understood Dr. Saffarini to say that they looked

16· ·at the steel in the area of the failure for

17· ·scratching, which I would expect comes from movement

18· ·as opposed to the sound and might indicate movement

19· ·that would cause the sound.

20· · · · · · · · · I see the two as very related and I'm

21· ·interested in what you might expect to see, what you

22· ·did see and what that tells us about whether or not

23· ·there was movement of the core slabs in that area.

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, yes.· And

25· ·I appreciate that absolutely, that what I was

·1· ·referring to sound, I should be referring to sound

·2· ·and movement, and we were exploring sound and

·3· ·movement and, in fact, the three possible scenarios

·4· ·that we put forward in the report, all address the

·5· ·sound and movement simultaneously.· Basically what

·6· ·I just described earlier in terms of the possibility

·7· ·of the de-bonded topping that is curling, that is

·8· ·being tread over and then hammering at the concrete

·9· ·and vibrating and making the sound or the locking of

10· ·the hollowcore slabs, which are bearing unevenly on

11· ·the steel, or the final possibility that the steel

12· ·itself is in partial attachment and that it is

13· ·actually as it deflects, is scratching the surface.

14· · · · · · · · · The last scenario would have been

15· ·a scenario that would be the most difficult to, in

16· ·fact, justify, because the movement that would be

17· ·there would be very small movement and we also talk

18· ·about that, so the movement that would be small,

19· ·that would be emitting from a steel partial

20· ·detachment, if you wish, would be small.

21· · · · · · · · · But as that movement happens, it

22· ·could possibly -- we kind of put forward

23· ·a proposition to either accept or reject, which

24· ·eventually we are of the belief that we are to

25· ·reject that proposition, involved steel members of

·1· ·the angle that is attached to the beam, scratching

·2· ·against the column, and that's where we asked BMT to

·3· ·comment specifically on whether there were any signs

·4· ·of such scratching.

·5· · · · · · · · · And you will see that in the BMT

·6· ·report, they -- report that they have been asked and

·7· ·that they had looked and that they find no evidence

·8· ·of such scratching.

·9· · · · · · · · · BY MR. CASSAN:

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So the scratching, if

11· ·I understand you correctly, would be vertical

12· ·scratching of the beam on the face of the column?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Correct.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And did you also look at the

15· ·bearing surface of the beam to see -- I would assume

16· ·if there was movement there that was unexpected,

17· ·there would be an area that's effectively polished,

18· ·where you would see that movement had been going on?

19· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Actually, what

20· ·we were -- if we take -- because the third

21· ·proposition, which is the movement of the steel

22· ·would not entail any brushing of steel against

23· ·a hard surface that would result in such

24· ·a scratching, but the second option of the locking

25· ·of the precast could possibly have that.· But

·1· ·I don't think that -- I would not be of the opinion

·2· ·that concrete and pounding on the steel would leave

·3· ·lasting impressions that would be perceived or

·4· ·measured forensically.

·5· · · · · · · · · So, yes, in other words, the cause of

·6· ·it -- if it were not the result of a partial steel

·7· ·failure, would have no impact on our final

·8· ·conclusions, if this were as we eventually came to

·9· ·the belief that this is a prevalent condition that

10· ·is found elsewhere, and as a result is not

11· ·associated with this particular location and, thus,

12· ·not relevant to the actual failure.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So, to summarize then, I guess

14· ·what we're left with is evidence that either there

15· ·was no unusual movement or that the movement that

16· ·was there, if any, was not contributing to the

17· ·failure; is it that simple?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, I believe

19· ·that's a good summary.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, thank you.

21· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· I think

22· ·I misunderstood.· I thought -- I probably missed it

23· ·all together, I thought that when we were referring

24· ·to scratching, we weren't referring to something

25· ·that could be visually observed on the material, but

·1· ·that there had been some evidence of a scratching

·2· ·sound.

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. CASSAN:· I see.

·4· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· And then that's

·5· ·why I interjected, but I think I was in error in my

·6· ·perception.· The scratching you're talking about is

·7· ·the physical manifestation of movement?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·9· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· On the part of the

10· ·structure?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

12· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· I had

13· ·misunderstood.· Thank you.

14· · · · · · · · · BY MR. CASSAN:

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I'm going to move on now.· If

16· ·I understand your evidence, Dr. Saffarini, you've

17· ·stated that your research into this particular

18· ·collapse revealed that there is no prior history in

19· ·the engineering record of a corrosion-based collapse

20· ·of buildings?

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is

22· ·a statement that we make which is basically, as we

23· ·stated, for buildings that are in an enclosed

24· ·environment, they are expected to be in a dry,

25· ·controlled environment, such as this, where failure

·1· ·would have resulted.· I mean, we're not including

·2· ·a shed that is out in the open and could have been

·3· ·a deserted shed that could fail.· That would not

·4· ·have been covered under this statement.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So, if that's the case, would

·6· ·you say that that bears on the reason that this

·7· ·failure was not predicted by the engineers that

·8· ·reviewed the building, the fact that there is no

·9· ·body of knowledge that -- or there's no previous

10· ·examples of a similar type of failure?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, I think

12· ·you could probably -- if you were to form two

13· ·different dimensions, one is perhaps you are

14· ·suggesting that because there is no precedence, that

15· ·there was no sufficient attention that is paid to

16· ·it.· Is this what is implied?· But on the other

17· ·hand, because it is such an unusual situation, it

18· ·merited more attention to be paid to it, because

19· ·this continuous leakage, and the process of

20· ·corrosion in an inhabited, occupied, supposedly dry

21· ·space is a significant reason to pay a lot more

22· ·attention than you would, if you just walked into

23· ·a building like this.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You had a discussion yesterday

25· ·with my friend, Mr. Hodgson, about it not being in

·1· ·the -- the layman's knowledge that leaking would

·2· ·necessarily lead to a threat to the structural

·3· ·integrity of the building.· And I'm just wondering

·4· ·if that conveys to the inspecting engineers, as

·5· ·well.· Do you remember that discussion?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) I remember the

·7· ·discussion, that if leaking does not necessarily,

·8· ·from a layman's point of view, lead to corrosion,

·9· ·I don't think that even then -- yes, it would be

10· ·even a layman, perhaps, would know that water and

11· ·metal, and so on, would cause corrosion.· Whether

12· ·they would appreciate the seriousness of this or

13· ·appreciate that this could possibly lead to

14· ·a failure for a layman, that is not necessarily

15· ·obvious.· But for an engineer, it should be

16· ·something that is worth investigating.· In fact,

17· ·that is a duty to investigate, if you are out there

18· ·as an inspector, and that is a primary thing that

19· ·you would be looking for.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So the average person may not

21· ·understand that, but I understand you now to say

22· ·that a structural engineer should have picked that

23· ·threat up?

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) A structural

25· ·engineer, even an engineering technologist, even

·1· ·a building inspector, I would expect that all of

·2· ·those categories of people would fall under

·3· ·non-layman.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, thank you.· I want one of

·5· ·you to help us understand the different types of

·6· ·inspections that are available.· We've heard about

·7· ·destructive and nondestructive testing.

·8· · · · · · · · · We've heard of visual inspections and

·9· ·so on and I'm wondering if you -- if somebody could

10· ·take us through what is a visual inspection, what

11· ·are intrusive inspections, I think is something that

12· ·we've heard of, what are destructive inspections?

13· ·Just so that we can understand the array of --

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) When we talk

15· ·about destructive and nondestructive testing.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) An inspection is

18· ·an inspection.· If you do your inspection, you could

19· ·include an assortment of tools to help you with your

20· ·inspection, and it starts from your understanding of

21· ·the site, understanding of the conditions and then

22· ·deciding what would be the most appropriate tool to

23· ·conduct these testing, where relevant.

24· · · · · · · · · So, basically, the inspection can be

25· ·by a qualified person who goes on site, assesses

·1· ·what are the parameters that are there, what are the

·2· ·likely elements that merit investigation, may make

·3· ·up his mind about the kind of seriousness of the

·4· ·limits of what needs to be inspected in detail, and

·5· ·then they can go about doing this test.

·6· · · · · · · · · So, you would hardly get an inspector

·7· ·or investigator who walks into the site with all of

·8· ·his equipment ready to extract samples and do

·9· ·detailed inspections.· Typically, you would find the

10· ·condition at hand and then set out to perform the

11· ·necessary testing.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.

13· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Dr. Ghods, has

14· ·your firm not been developing equipment that is

15· ·designed to analyze either concrete or steel or

16· ·metals embedded in concrete that are non-invasive or

17· ·nondestructive?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes, actually we

19· ·have a technology --

20· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Could you tell us

21· ·something about that?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) We have a technology

23· ·to measurement of corrosion.· It is a nondestructive

24· ·technique inside the concrete.· From the surface of

25· ·the concrete, we can do the measurement and first

·1· ·determine if it's corroded or not.· If it's

·2· ·corroded, the rate of corrosion of rebar inside the

·3· ·concrete.

·4· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Is that portable

·5· ·equipment?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yeah, that's

·7· ·portable equipment.

·8· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· You can bring it

·9· ·on site somewhere and --

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes, exactly.

11· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Could you give us

12· ·more details about that?· Assuming, for example,

13· ·that an owner or an engineer wanted to do some

14· ·testing, is that equipment readily available?

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes, actually.

16· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· And then could you

17· ·describe the technical aspects of the equipment?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes, there are

19· ·different actually techniques, similar actually

20· ·equipments available for other companies, doing

21· ·pretty much the similar things.

22· · · · · · · · · What they do, they measure the rate

23· ·of the corrosion, so the speed of corrosion, how

24· ·fast it's going, by passing some currents, there are

25· ·different techniques, electrochemical techniques

·1· ·that are used in those devices, that they pass the

·2· ·current or even voltage and they -- sorry, okay, so

·3· ·based on the response of the rebars inside the

·4· ·concrete, so they can get a good estimation of the

·5· ·corrosion condition of rebar in concrete and also,

·6· ·they can tell us how fast the corrosion is ongoing

·7· ·inside the concrete.

·8· · · · · · · · · Yes, there are technology available.

·9· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· And that is an

10· ·electromechanical process of some sort?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) It's

12· ·electrochemical.

13· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Or

14· ·electrochemical?

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) We are applying

16· ·current and we measure the electrochemistry, the

17· ·rate of the electrochemical reaction, because

18· ·corrosion is basically an electrochemical reaction,

19· ·so we are measuring the rate of that reaction.

20· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· I see.· And apart

21· ·from that, and this, perhaps, follows up on what

22· ·you're asking: Are there -- I know when I go to the

23· ·hospital to get an MRI done or -- are there other

24· ·techniques, ultrasound techniques available as well?

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes, there are more

·1· ·advanced techniques available, for example, there is

·2· ·a technique, they call it GPR, ground penetration

·3· ·radar, so they look at the location of the rebars

·4· ·and also if it's a severe corrosion condition inside

·5· ·the concrete, they can detect the de-lamination of

·6· ·the concrete.

·7· · · · · · · · · Yes, there are more advanced

·8· ·techniques, but even in the standard, this is the

·9· ·same standard, there is another technique which is

10· ·simpler.· They call it Halsall measurement, that

11· ·they use --

12· · · · · · · · · THE COURT REPORTER:· They call it?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Again, technical

14· ·term, Halsall Corrosion Potential -- so this is the

15· ·technique we use actually on the roof of the mall,

16· ·the Algo Mall Centre, so we identify the corrosion,

17· ·it was nondestructive and it is very portable, I

18· ·mean, it is just an electrode and a voltmeter.

19· · · · · · · · · So the corrosion, the corrosion

20· ·condition was really bad.· The steel mesh and

21· ·concrete was severely corrosion almost everywhere.

22· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· And is that very

23· ·expensive equipment?· Does it require -- and does it

24· ·require particularly expert handling by highly

25· ·qualified individuals or could I -- with some

·1· ·instruction -- be able to use that equipment?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) No, actually it is

·3· ·not complicated.· You can train a technician and

·4· ·a technician can do the measurement.· The principle

·5· ·is very simple.

·6· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Okay, thank you.

·7· · · · · · · · · BY MR. CASSAN:

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·To pick up on the Commissioner's

·9· ·question, Dr. Ghods, when did that technology become

10· ·generally available?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) I guess the Halsall

12· ·Corrosion Measurement is back to 1980 -- '97, but

13· ·it's for rebar inside concrete, not the steel

14· ·structure.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Well, the steel structure, we

16· ·can see.

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) You can see that.

18· ·That's why, usually a visual inspection and section

19· ·loss measurement would be enough, but there are some

20· ·cases that you have like a coating or maybe more

21· ·complicated cases, there are some instruments that

22· ·measure the thickness from one surface actually, on

23· ·the surface, they are based on ultrasound, I guess,

24· ·their technique.· But usually section loss

25· ·measurement would be enough, but in more complicated

·1· ·case, they may ask for advanced techniques.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And when you do a visual

·3· ·inspection or when you are inspecting the steel

·4· ·structure underneath the concrete, in this case,

·5· ·I understand that there are occasions where you may

·6· ·not be able to see all of the connections.· Would

·7· ·that sort of technology help you to analyze the

·8· ·connections that are hidden behind drywall or bricks

·9· ·and mortar or something like that?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) As far as I know --

11· ·as far as I know, there is no technique -- such

12· ·technique available.· You need to expose the surface

13· ·of the steel structures.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You must have destructive

15· ·testing to get to the connections that you cannot

16· ·see, if you're going to analyze it?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) It is

18· ·an opening, not a destructive testing.

19· · · · · · · · · (Dr. Ghods) No, not an opening.· Just

20· ·for the area like --

21· · · · · · · · · (Dr. Saffarini) It's an opening in

22· ·the drywall, ceiling or whatever.

23· · · · · · · · · (Dr. Ghods) Drywall, fire proof

24· ·material, you know, just to expose the limits.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·But that would be, by its

·1· ·nature, destructive testing, if you are poking

·2· ·a hole in the wall or?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, we don't

·4· ·call that destructive.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) It may be

·7· ·destructive to the owner in the sense that --

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· (Dr. Ghods) Not destructive to

·9· ·a structure.

10· · · · · · · · · A.· (Dr. Saffarini) It will be

11· ·disruptive.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Disruptive testing, a new term.

13· · · · · · · · · A.· (Dr. Ghods) "Destructive" means

14· ·destructive to the structure, to the -- like the

15· ·loading capacity of the structure or something, for

16· ·example, core drilling is destructive, so because we

17· ·are taking something, you know, from this lab and we

18· ·need to fill it out appropriately, so that it

19· ·doesn't disturb the functionality of the structure,

20· ·yeah.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So I want to go back to visual

22· ·inspection.

23· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes.

24· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·In a visual inspection, are you

25· ·actually taking down drywall, taking off

·1· ·fireproofing?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) For visual

·3· ·inspection, yes, otherwise you cannot see what's

·4· ·going on.· Especially corrosion, you need to expose

·5· ·the surface completely, yes.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So, in a visual inspection, if

·7· ·you -- when you are looking at the work done by

·8· ·structural engineers who are analyzing this mall,

·9· ·would you expect them to look at every single

10· ·connection?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Let me just

12· ·point out that there was a substantial part of the

13· ·mall that was not fire protected.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) The whole of the

16· ·Zeller's area which had some severe corrosion, had

17· ·no fire protection, so all you needed to do is to

18· ·look through the false ceiling and determine that

19· ·there is an issue, bring a ladder or some device to

20· ·lift you to -- in position to see the actual -- or

21· ·be close to the member, so that you can assess them.

22· ·So that would be one category.

23· · · · · · · · · There is another category which is

24· ·these walkways which were available, that you don't

25· ·need any exposing whatsoever.

·1· · · · · · · · · But then, there are locations where

·2· ·there were fire protection and then some of the fire

·3· ·protection, in fact, had fallen off, typically

·4· ·indicating leakage and possible corrosion.· In those

·5· ·locations, to better understand and, in fact,

·6· ·appreciate the severity, you did need to remove the

·7· ·fire protection and observe the steel.

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·All right.· There's -- in my

·9· ·understanding of the evidence that's -- that's come

10· ·before the Commission so far, there seems to be some

11· ·confusion about what an engineer does when he or she

12· ·is conducting a visual inspection.

13· · · · · · · · · By its nature, it sounds like you use

14· ·your eyes, but is it -- is it part of a visual

15· ·inspection as well to get out the calipers and

16· ·measure thicknesses to find section loss, to do --

17· ·to use tools to physically measure things or is it

18· ·strictly limited to what you can apprehend with your

19· ·eyes?

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) The term that we

21· ·use, and that we borrow from the OSIM, is a detailed

22· ·visual inspection.

23· · · · · · · · · It is a visual inspection.· It is

24· ·detailed in the sense that you, in fact, remove the

25· ·material that is the corrosion product and measure.

·1· ·Can you?

·2· · · · · · · · · (Dr. Ghods) Basically, visual

·3· ·inspection, first of all, I mean, the important

·4· ·thing is that it should be in a close distance, like

·5· ·exact definition is arm's length distance, so that

·6· ·you can have, you can see the details and also, you

·7· ·can use a hammer to tap on the surface of the steel

·8· ·to see, you know, if it's something or to get

·9· ·a feeling of that.

10· · · · · · · · · But if you want to quantify that, you

11· ·see that there are substantial amount of corrosion,

12· ·you know, corrosion is severe, you want to quantify

13· ·that, you have to use -- you have to do the --

14· ·section loss measurement, which is called detailed

15· ·visual inspection, to get more quantitative numbers.

16· ·So sometimes it is really hard, because it is

17· ·covered with corrosion, as I said, you cannot decide

18· ·it is a substantial amount of section is gone or

19· ·it's just a surface rust.

20· · · · · · · · · In that case, you need to do the

21· ·section loss in order to evaluate the safety of the

22· ·structure.

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Now, are there guidelines, that

24· ·you are aware of, from the PEO or -- it's the

25· ·architect's AAO, as to the procedures or

·1· ·requirements for these types of inspections?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) We've quoted the

·3· ·Ministry of Transport publication, which is this

·4· ·manual for inspection.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And that's the OSIM?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) OSIM.

·7· · · · · · · · · That is, to our mind, as close as you

·8· ·can get to a detailed description of how you can

·9· ·conduct an investigation.

10· · · · · · · · · Now, there is a new guideline that

11· ·has been issued by PAO, but it only describes, in

12· ·general terms, or it asks for section loss

13· ·measurement to be done.

14· · · · · · · · · It doesn't define what would be the

15· ·classification of what is measured and so on.· So it

16· ·is a guideline, it is a reminder to the engineers to

17· ·be careful and do such detailed visual inspection,

18· ·including the section loss.

19· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·The guideline that you are

20· ·speaking of, the OSIM, that's designed primarily to

21· ·deal with bridges, as I understand it?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) It was generated

23· ·for the purposes of dealing with bridges.· As we

24· ·indicated, we used it as a guideline.· Others can

25· ·use it as a guideline, if they wish to.

·1· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·One of the purposes of the

·2· ·Commission and one of the roles of the Commissioner,

·3· ·of course, is going to be to make some

·4· ·recommendations, and certainly with the confusion

·5· ·about what is a visual inspection, how these

·6· ·inspections work, and sounds like the lack of

·7· ·a specific guideline for dealing with building

·8· ·inspections like had been done or been thought to be

·9· ·done on this mall, do you have any words or

10· ·recommendations that you would provide to the

11· ·Commissioner with respect to suggesting that

12· ·guidelines be implemented for this type of

13· ·an inspection?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, and we

15· ·state that.· We say that it would be beneficial that

16· ·guidelines be issued.· I think that PAO has taken

17· ·a very significant and important step in giving such

18· ·guidelines, some specifics can be added or issued in

19· ·some other guidelines or other publications, but

20· ·yes, we absolutely recommend that more guidance be

21· ·given.

22· · · · · · · · · (Mr. Dinovitzer) Can I --

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Sorry.

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Depending on

25· ·where you look, there are other industry sectors,

·1· ·other areas, there are specific certifications for

·2· ·inspection, inspectors, inspection technologies,

·3· ·different industries treat it differently.

·4· · · · · · · · · So, you can -- you can draw

·5· ·information from -- from what's in other used

·6· ·elsewhere for this application.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And do you have examples that

·8· ·would be helpful for the Commission?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) I can forward

10· ·some information, if that's desired, yes.

11· · · · · · · · · (Dr. Ghods) Sorry, if I may add

12· ·something?

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Sure.

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) As an example, MTO

15· ·has a program for -- to certify the inspector, so

16· ·basically, based on the manual that trains the

17· ·technicians, mainly technicians and also engineers

18· ·to -- for the inspection of bridges based on the

19· ·OSIM manual.· There is a specification program, yes.

20· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And are you aware of any similar

21· ·standards for building inspectors?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) There are CSA

23· ·standards for structural inspection.· There is

24· ·specific certifications that can be had from,

25· ·I believe, under guidance from the Canadian Welding

·1· ·Bureau, they offer training and so on.

·2· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And would that be helpful for

·3· ·municipal building inspectors; is that available to

·4· ·them?

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Yes, it is.· In

·6· ·some instances, it's required.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.

·8· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Going from

·9· ·province to province, is there a high-water mark, to

10· ·your knowledge, gentlemen, that you could point the

11· ·Commission to in this particular area?· For example,

12· ·I don't know -- I have no idea, but would the

13· ·province of Quebec or the province of British

14· ·Columbia have some of the inspection requirements

15· ·that you've been discussing with Mr. Cassan or is

16· ·Ontario the high-water mark?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) So, if I may?· So

18· ·for bridges, yes, each province has its own

19· ·inspection manual, so for example, I know that

20· ·University of -- I mean, province of Alberta, they

21· ·have their own, actually, inspection manual.

22· · · · · · · · · They are a little bit different.

23· ·Some of them are more -- I mean, I can say that they

24· ·are more detailed in some of them.· They are at

25· ·different levels.

·1· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Is there a gold

·2· ·standard that you say we should emulate in this

·3· ·province?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) I beg your pardon?

·5· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Is there a gold

·6· ·standard that you think we should be emulating in

·7· ·this province?

·8· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) There are some

·9· ·weaknesses and you know --

10· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Or elsewhere in

11· ·North America, for example?

12· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Ghods) Yes, even in North

13· ·America, they have AAC, they have their own

14· ·standards.· Yeah, there are some standards for

15· ·bridges, because the main focus of those standards

16· ·are for bridges, safety of bridges and that's why

17· ·probably we can get several of those in North

18· ·America, yeah.

19· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Yeah.· Thank you.

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) The word

21· ·"inspection" though has to be looked at carefully,

22· ·because often a building inspector or inspection of

23· ·construction is where you would have more common

24· ·training and certification and so on, for people

25· ·going to site and inspecting welds and inspecting

·1· ·all sorts of construction compliance.· Inspection of

·2· ·deteriorating structure or the inspection of

·3· ·a structure, to determine the state of it, would be

·4· ·another category that I think primarily we are

·5· ·saying that there are more -- a lot more in bridges

·6· ·than you would find in buildings.

·7· · · · · · · · · BY MR. CASSAN:

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And I take it that when you were

·9· ·answering my question about whether it's a good idea

10· ·to have some standards or some protocols or

11· ·practices put in place, I was intending to talk

12· ·about deteriorating buildings --

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) And I --

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- as opposed to new

15· ·construction.

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Agreed, and

17· ·that's why I'm emphasizing the point.

18· · · · · · · · · MR. CASSAN:· Thank you for that.

19· · · · · · · · · To move on, I wonder, Ms. Kuka, can

20· ·you pull up Exhibit No. 5159 and this is for Mr.

21· ·Dinovitzer.· Page 13, I'm sorry.

22· · · · · · · · · BY MR. CASSAN:

23· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Mr. Dinovitzer, I understood you

24· ·to say that the L shaped welds that exhibit the

25· ·white or the fresh metal, on the top side of this

·1· ·exhibit, showed a beam that got torn away.

·2· · · · · · · · · Do you know how it was torn away and

·3· ·how it relates to, if at all, to the collapse?

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) So this is --

·5· ·this is the one that was torn during demolition?

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· (Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·7· · · · · · · · · A.· (Mr. Dinovitzer) This is -- so,

·8· ·no, I -- some construction equipment was used to

·9· ·pull the beams apart, the beam apart.· I don't --

10· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I just wanted to clarify whether

11· ·or not this had anything to do with the collapse or

12· ·whether this was mechanically --

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, I was on

14· ·site, Mr. Dinovitzer was not on site.

15· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Oh, okay.

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) So, yes, this

17· ·was torn while we were on site, and this was, in

18· ·fact, a corner column at the intersection of the two

19· ·expansion joints and this was standing in place

20· ·when --

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So, this doesn't show -- and we

22· ·should not understand this to demonstrate a flaw or

23· ·a fault in the building?· This was --

24· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No.

25· · · · · · · · · MR. CASSAN:· Thank you.· I wonder,

·1· ·Ms. Kuka, if you can pull up page 84 of Exhibit No.

·2· ·3007, which is the report and this is the photo

·3· ·showing the drain work that was done and I suppose

·4· ·Dr. Hughes talked about this.

·5· · · · · · · · · BY MR. CASSAN:

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·You were talking about the

·7· ·twinning of the roof drains being different from the

·8· ·original design.· In your inspection, was there

·9· ·anyway to tell when that work was done?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No, not

11· ·definitively, no.

12· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Could you even tell whether it

13· ·was a year old or ten years old or 20?

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I would speculate

15· ·this is probably more than 10 years old.

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·More than 10 years old?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Now, Dr. Hughes, you also

19· ·indicated, and you spoke to my friend about this,

20· ·that the design was narrowly compliant with the

21· ·code.

22· · · · · · · · · And from a Chief Building Official

23· ·point of view, would the Chief Building Official

24· ·have had the ability to refuse to give a building

25· ·permit in this case?

·1· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Oh, certainly, if

·2· ·he felt that the design was not code-compliant or up

·3· ·to his standards of documentation or detail,

·4· ·certainly.

·5· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Oh, sir, I understand that, but

·6· ·if you as a professional architect are telling us

·7· ·that the design complied with the code of the day,

·8· ·my understanding is that the CBO then does not have

·9· ·the jurisdiction to say, "Well, I'm not going to

10· ·give you the building permit"?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) No, I think you've

12· ·misunderstood.· My review is that the documents

13· ·narrowly comply with the OBC of the day.

14· · · · · · · · · The CBO would have had their own

15· ·interpretation of the documents and they would have

16· ·had to satisfy themselves to their own standards

17· ·that they met the OBC.

18· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· But if they meet the

19· ·OBC, which you are saying they do -- narrowly, but

20· ·they do.

21· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) If the -- if the

22· ·inspector or Chief Building Official decides on his

23· ·own terms that it meets the OBC, then he can grant

24· ·a building permit.

25· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And he must grant a building

·1· ·permit?

·2· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) I -- if it meets

·3· ·the OBC and he's satisfied with the documentation,

·4· ·then I see no reason why he wouldn't grant the

·5· ·building permit.

·6· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.· And -- fair enough,

·7· ·we'll leave it at that.

·8· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· No matter how

·9· ·narrow.

10· · · · · · · · · BY MR. CASSAN:

11· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I was interested with the

12· ·analysis or the analogy of the steel as being

13· ·similar to steel that you see in a marine

14· ·environment.

15· · · · · · · · · Was it possible at all to

16· ·cathodically protect the steel in a building like

17· ·this?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) There are

19· ·situations but they would be very, very unusual

20· ·situations, that you would want to protect

21· ·cathodically a building that is in a dry condition.

22· ·It's far cheaper to seal the building.· I mean,

23· ·there would be no conceivable reason why you would

24· ·cathodically protect a steel building.

25· · · · · · · · · (Mr. Dinovitzer) Just a quick

·1· ·correction, it is not the steel that is similar to

·2· ·a marine environment.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay.

·4· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) It is the

·5· ·environment.· The moisture and the chlorine, we are

·6· ·saying it is similar to the environment that the

·7· ·building or the steel is in, is similar to a marine

·8· ·environment.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Was it you, Mr. Dinovitzer, that

10· ·came up with that conclusion?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Certainly, it

12· ·was certainly my term, yes.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Okay, so I was interested in

14· ·finding out what you meant by a marine environment;

15· ·is that like living on the seaside or is that like

16· ·living in the sea?

17· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) No, it is

18· ·a marine-like environment.· What we're -- what we're

19· ·trying -- what I was trying to convey was

20· ·the difference between a typical building structure

21· ·environment that is typically dry, a dry

22· ·environment, in the absence of chlorine, to what

23· ·this building was -- or this building structure was

24· ·experiencing, where it was humid and it was wet and

25· ·it was -- there was plenty of chlorine to be had,

·1· ·which would -- those -- those situations would

·2· ·enhance or accelerate corrosion.

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Sure.· But I was wondering, do

·4· ·you --

·5· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) I didn't

·6· ·mean --

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·-- mean it's like this building

·8· ·was underwater in the ocean?

·9· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) No, no,

10· ·a marine -- one can talk of a marine environment

11· ·being something on the coast.· It can be -- it

12· ·doesn't need to be in the ocean.· It could be at the

13· ·ocean.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Right.

15· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) It can be --

16· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So not submerged, but in

17· ·Halifax?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Dinovitzer) Umm... no,

19· ·in -- at the -- at the -- the way I intended it was

20· ·an area that was wetted with seawater, if you want

21· ·to call it.

22· · · · · · · · · So if you are talking a building in

23· ·Halifax, no, that's not what the intention was.

24· · · · · · · · · MR. CASSAN:· Okay.· I am wondering,

25· ·Ms. Kuka, if you can pull up Exhibit No. 275, which

·1· ·is the certificate of completion letter.

·2· · · · · · · · · BY MR. CASSAN:

·3· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·This is the certificate of

·4· ·completion letter that was prepared on the mall on

·5· ·August 5th, 1980 and you will see that it's stamped

·6· ·both by Mr. Keywan as the architect and Mr. Kadlec

·7· ·as the engineer.

·8· · · · · · · · · I wondered if you could tell the

·9· ·Commission, in your experience, whether it's typical

10· ·to have two parties stamp this sort of a document?

11· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Well, nowadays,

12· ·you have two documents that would attest or several

13· ·documents for each for -- in its own discipline.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I see.· I notice that it was --

15· ·that Mr. Hirt's seal was absent and I just wondered,

16· ·perhaps, Dr. Hughes, if you would have expected, if

17· ·Mr. Keywan, the architect, who I understand to be

18· ·responsible for the building envelope, including the

19· ·roof, is certifying this and he's relying on Mr.

20· ·Hirt's expertise as an engineer, would you have

21· ·expected Mr. Hirt's seal on this document?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes and no.· If Mr.

23· ·Hirt had been retained by the owner to act as

24· ·an engineer, in a professional capacity for the

25· ·design of this building and that capacity included

·1· ·designing and specifying the roof membrane, then his

·2· ·role would have required him to, in fact, perhaps

·3· ·seal or stamp this document as well.

·4· · · · · · · · · However, from what I can tell, Mr.

·5· ·Hirt was not employed by Algo Centre as an engineer

·6· ·on the project; he was an owner de facto, so he was

·7· ·not holding out professional services per se, so

·8· ·it's -- he's kind of walking the line between being

·9· ·an engineer, who has responsibilities to the design

10· ·of the project and being an owner who expects

11· ·an engineer, an architect to provide services to the

12· ·project.

13· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So, with respect to the roof

14· ·system, particularly, do you take it, if Mr. Keywan

15· ·has signed and stamped this document, that he is

16· ·taking responsibility for that portion of the

17· ·building envelope?

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) If Mr. Keywan

19· ·stamps this letter, he is taking responsibility for

20· ·the design of the entire building.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And he did?

22· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Mr. Hughes) Yes.

23· · · · · · · · · MR. CASSAN:· Okay, thank you very

24· ·much.· I have no further questions.

25· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Thank you.

·1· · · · · · · · · Have we gone around the room in terms

·2· ·of cross?· Have I omitted anybody?· Mr. Carr-Harris

·3· ·then.

·4· · · · · · · · · MR. CARR-HARRIS:· Just a couple of

·5· ·brief points, Commissioner, if I may?

·6· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Yes.

·7· · · · · · · · · RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. CARR-HARRIS:

·8· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Gentlemen, just some -- for my

·9· ·own clarification, when Mr. Hodgson was questioning

10· ·you about the Halsall Report, and he indicated that

11· ·he took you to the Exhibit 70, which is the May

12· ·'99 Halsall Report, and in that he took you to the

13· ·costing sheet, which indicated clearly for

14· ·mobilization costs and related costs as part of the

15· ·calculation of the cost of each of the options.

16· · · · · · · · · And my question is, and I think Mr.

17· ·Hodgson said that basically anyone would understand

18· ·that that meant there would be qualified applicators

19· ·of this rout and seal option.· And I just wanted to

20· ·ask you, while we had you, in those circumstances

21· ·where the -- it is important that qualified

22· ·applicators apply the rout and seal option, that

23· ·they -- that there be something in the report to

24· ·make that clear.· And I'd like your opinion on that.

25· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, I suppose

·1· ·if that was a point of emphasis, that they saw that

·2· ·existing practice was failing and that the key to

·3· ·its success was a better application, then they

·4· ·probably could have pointed out exactly where the

·5· ·failing is, and how this can be rectified by the way

·6· ·that the application is done, rather than just

·7· ·included in the cost as an item to be done by

·8· ·a qualified contractor.

·9· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So you would have something in

10· ·addition to the costing sheet, indicating that the

11· ·application -- in the installation and application

12· ·of the option, rout and seal must be done by

13· ·a qualified --

14· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) If that was

15· ·their intent, if they saw that as a key element in

16· ·the success --

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Yes.

18· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) -- then it would

19· ·be logical that they would indicate that and they

20· ·would show what kind of qualifications that they

21· ·would require.

22· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·I think Mr. Celli said that it

23· ·wouldn't work without it, without qualified

24· ·applicators.

25· · · · · · · · · Then secondly, another question that

·1· ·Mr. Hodgson raised with you, was at page 45 of your

·2· ·report, paragraph B.· You don't need to go to it

·3· ·unless there is a reason, but the question was put

·4· ·to you -- there is a reference in there where it

·5· ·said that Halsall did not inspect connections.

·6· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

·7· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And I think Mr. Hodgson

·8· ·referenced that the -- at the hearings here, there

·9· ·was testimony to the contrary, but I wanted to ask

10· ·you this question: At the time that you wrote your

11· ·report, had you spoken to Halsall at all?· I take it

12· ·you hadn't?

13· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No, we had not.

14· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·So you were relying entirely on

15· ·the documents that you received?

16· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) That is correct.

17· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And the documents of Halsall, do

18· ·they, in any -- to your recollection, any reference

19· ·to a specific inspection of connections?

20· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) No.

21· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·Then, again, excuse me -- I just

22· ·want to -- we don't need to bring these up unless

23· ·you want to see them, but you will recall in the

24· ·presentation yesterday and today, which is Exhibit

25· ·No. 5159, at pages 43 and 53, respectively, there

·1· ·were sections dealing with visible corrosion.· Do

·2· ·you remember the photographs?

·3· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes, I do.

·4· · · · · · · · · Q.· ·And also at page 53, photographs

·5· ·of critical conditions.· And my question is: If

·6· ·somebody came to inspect those members of the steel

·7· ·that's in that -- in those photographs, say three

·8· ·months before you did, in 2012, would you expect

·9· ·those steel members to be in the same condition?

10· · · · · · · · · A.· ·(Dr. Saffarini) Yes.

11· · · · · · · · · MR. CARR-HARRIS:· Those are my

12· ·questions.· Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

13· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Thank you very

14· ·much.

15· · · · · · · · · Gentlemen, I thank you very, very

16· ·much for your evidence, your patience and the

17· ·benefit of your evident expertise.· The NORR Report

18· ·is a most important document and a significant

19· ·contribution to the Commission's and the

20· ·participants' understanding of what are complex

21· ·issues and for that, I thank you.

22· · · · · · · · · And I don't expect we'll be doing any

23· ·more work this afternoon, unless somebody wants to.

24· · · · · · · · · MR. CARR-HARRIS:· I think we've let

25· ·our witness go, Mr. Commissioner, so everybody else

·1· ·is free to do the same.

·2· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· I don't think

·3· ·after the break, we'd be in a position to do

·4· ·anything very useful.

·5· · · · · · · · · In any event, on Monday or Tuesday

·6· ·next, Mr. Carr-Harris, what's our -- or Ms. Authier,

·7· ·what's the plan, so people know?

·8· · · · · · · · · MS. AUTHIER:· The plan for Tuesday

·9· ·is, as indicated in the most recent schedule, being

10· ·Mr. Tom Turner and Mr. Denley.

11· · · · · · · · · THE COMMISSIONER:· Mr. Turner and Mr.

12· ·Denley, thank you very much.

13· · · · · · · · · Have a good long weekend everybody

14· ·and we'll see you on Tuesday at 9 o'clock in the

15· ·morning.

16· · · · · · · · · THE CLERK:· This Inquiry is now

17· ·adjourned until 9 o'clock on June, the 4th.

18

19· ·--- Whereupon at 3:35 p.m. the Inquiry proceedings

20· · · ·adjourned to 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 4, 2013 ---

21

22

23

24

25

·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

·2

·3· · · · · · · · · I, LISA M. BARRETT, RPR, CRR, CSR,

·4· ·Certified Shorthand Reporter certify;

·5· · · · · · · · · That the foregoing proceedings were

·6· ·taken before me at the time and place therein set

·7· ·forth;

·8· · · · · · · · · That the testimony of the witness

·9· ·and all objections made at the time of the

10· ·examination were recorded stenographically by me

11· ·and were therefter transcribed;

12· · · · · · · · · That the foregoing is a true and

13· ·correct transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.

14

15

16· · · · · · · · · Dated this 30th day of May, 2013.

17· · · · · · · · · ____________________________________

18· · · · · · · · · NEESON & ASSOCIATES

19· · · · · · · · · COURT REPORTING AND CAPTIONING INC.

20· · · · · · · · · PER: LISA BARRETT, RPR, CRR, CSR

21

22

23

24

25

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com

http://www.neesoncourtreporting.com