OBOA 2015 ANNUAL MEETING & TRAINING SESSIONS A Northern Case Study – A Success in Regulatory Partnership (Ongoing)

Aerial View of Subject Property Ste Anne Rd Paris St Elm St Aerial View of Subject Property

SUBJECT PROPERTY Three storey shopping mall – Group D (offices) and Group E (retail); two storey parking garage structure – Group F3 (parking and open air parking) – built in 1970 Attached four storey hotel - Group C (hotel) – built in 1970 Attached two storey office tower – Group D – built in 1973

SUBJECT PROPERTY Attached six storey office tower - Group D – built in 1979 Approximate total square footage is 583,793 Over 700 parking spots approximately quarter of all downtown parking (157,000 sq.ft.) 4” reinforced concrete on 11/2” deep steel composite deck over structural steel framing

SUBJECT PROPERTY 2001 Building Condition Assessment was commissioned by current owner due to purchase of mall through power of sale This report was never disclosed to Chief Building Official (CBO) New ownership problematic to Building Department

CEILING IN MALL MANAGER’S OFFICE

OUTSIDE VIEW OF SAME AREA

INITIAL MINISTRY INVOLVEMENT Ministry of Labour (MOL) receives complaint in December 2012 of water leak Leak was from a blocked rain water drainage pipe MOL inspectors met with mall owners who undertook the repairs All repairs stemming from initial complaint on 2011 construction were completed in April 2013

INITIAL MINISTRY INVOLVEMENT MOL was provided a building assessment report which was done in 2011 Report did not address the issue of structural integrity but did mention leakage in several locations including expansion joints and roof drains During this time, a 2001 engineering report was located which identified structural issues in the mall

MINISTRY CGS PARTNERSHIP MOL met twice with City of Greater Sudbury (CGS) building officials to disclose both reports and review the situation June 4, 2013 MOL issued an order to the mall’s owners to provide an engineer’s report detailing how the issues in 2001 were dealt with, identify structural deficiencies and recommendations for solutions – compliance date was September 16, 2013

MINISTRY OF LABOUR - ORDER September 16, 2013 – mall owner was not in compliance with MOL Order MOL received telephone call by mall manager advising that an engineer had been hired Order was extended to October 7, 2013 providing that a signed contract was submitted to MOL by September 25, 2013 indicating the scope of work Interim report received October 8, 2013 MOL further extends order to November 20, 2013

CITY OF GREATER SUDBURY ORDERS Order to Comply – failing to obtain a building permit for remedial repairs to underside of ramp – issued October 23, 2013 November 4, 2013 another report submitted indicating further work with additional steel for “fail safe design” Third party engineering firm retained by CGS to review remedial steps prior to issuing building permit

CITY OF GREATER SUDBURY ORDERS MOL copied with CGS third party (22) memorandums. Losing patience April 28, 2014 mall hires new Toronto based engineering firm May 7, 2014 – meeting at mall – all parties Engineer’s report dated May 12, 2014 – addressing deterioration of the parking structure – restricting the use of vehicular occupancy

CITY OF GREATER SUDBURY ORDERS Order to Remedy Unsafe Building – P1 and P2 parking areas based on engineer’s report – issued May 14, 2014 Temporary shoring and restriction of parking areas commenced Final condition survey report submitted June 11, 2014 Four year remedial plan by mall’s new engineer accepted by MOL Remediation to the tune of $8-$10 million being monitored currently by MOL and CGS

Shoring of P1 Parking Area

Shoring of P2 Parking Area

P1 Parking Area

P2 Parking Area

PARKING GARAGE

PARKING GARAGE

SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES Mall in receivership for period of time “mortgagee in position” not well maintained Engineers’ reports and work undertaken without benefit of permit Existing structural evaluation difficult because of above Owner’s manager dictating engineering evaluation, scope and design

SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES Engineers not forwarding interim reports for changes in building permit scope Municipality’s lack of specialized skills for evaluating designs, need to retain third party structural engineer ($$) Politics/Economics/Media