I figured this would eventually rear it’s head;
I guess we will have to wait and see the evidence before making any conclusions on this, BUT, as I understand it the reason ARS had to make additional repairs was because they damaged it while making the initial repairs, not sure if that is true, but I would assume this is why McGill didn’t pay them to make the repairs, because ARS was responsible. Like I said, I haven’t seen the evidence yet, but I also find it peculiar that the city is suing on behalf of a contractor? In my opinion the city (taxpayers) should get our money back from McGill for the repairs, but that should NOT go to ARS since they are partially responsible. I guess I am not buying the ‘on for seen damage’ claims for additional costs. Why? Because this roof has been a repair issue since 2015, and before that, the first year it opened people noticed water damage on the fourth floor, I saw it myself. We all knew the amount of damage, that’s why the price tag was so high.
It will be interesting what the courts decide, but we will never hear about it in the local news.