THE ENGINEERING REPORT
On May 16, 2025, engineer Jessica Courte issued an expert report concerning the deficiencies identified at the residence.
The report addressed the absence of a vapour barrier in the bathroom and laundry room and the resulting risks associated with the exterior wall assemblies.
The report formed part of the material submitted in support of the homeowner's claim.
It was engineering evidence submitted before the RBQ's first refusal of the claim.
THE PHYSICAL OBSERVATION
After portions of the wall assemblies were opened, the absence of a vapour barrier could be physically observed in the areas inspected.
The engineer documented that physical observation and stated that it corroborated the findings of her earlier engineering report.
The additional evidence was submitted during the revision process.
At paragraph 39, the Bureau expressly addressed this evidence.
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWED
The engineering report identified the absence of a vapour barrier in the bathroom and laundry room.
The later physical inspection documented the absence of a vapour barrier in the areas opened and inspected.
The Bureau's decision records that this physical observation corroborated the engineer's report.
The published decision itself therefore records evidence capable, in the Bureau's own hypothetical wording, of being “determinative” in proving the presence of a construction defect.
THE POINT AT WHICH THE EVIDENCE MET THE PROCEDURE
The engineering report was submitted before the RBQ's first refusal of the claim.
The later physical observation was submitted during the revision process.
The Bureau addressed that additional evidence at paragraph 39 of its decision.
The evidence changed.
The procedural obstacle identified by the Bureau did not.
THE CONTRACTOR'S OWN STATEMENT
On March 18, 2025, the contractor provided a written response concerning the work performed in the bathroom and laundry room.
The contractor stated that there was no aluminium film in the bathroom. Regarding the laundry room, he stated that aluminium film had been removed and that no new vapour barrier had been installed. He attributed the prior removal to work done before his arrival.
This statement formed part of the documentary record preceding the engineering report.
The engineering evidence did not arise in isolation. It followed a written statement from the contractor concerning the wall assemblies themselves.
THREE STAGES OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Before the engineering report, the contractor had provided a written statement concerning the wall assemblies.
On May 16, 2025, the engineer issued her report identifying the absence of a vapour barrier and the associated risks.
During the revision process, opened wall assemblies permitted direct physical observation of the condition in the areas inspected.
Written statement. Engineering assessment. Physical observation.
The record developed in stages.
CONTINUE TO THE DOCUMENTS →