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

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

3. 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

4. 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

7. 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

8. CEILING IN MALL MANAGER’S OFFICE

9. OUTSIDE VIEW OF SAME AREA

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Shoring of P1 Parking Area

18. Shoring of P2 Parking Area

19. P1 Parking Area

20. P2 Parking Area

21. PARKING GARAGE

22. PARKING GARAGE

24. 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

25. 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