Subscribe: Schenk & Associates Comments
http://schenklaw.ca/?feed=comments-rss2
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
building code  building  buildings  code  comment  condo  drug testing  drug  industry  interesting topic  interesting  leaky condo  leaky  testing 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Schenk & Associates Comments

Comments for Schenk & Associates



Focused. Legal Solutions.



Last Build Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:54:58 +0000

 



Comment on Dismissal of an “At Pleasure Appointee” by links for 2006-09-15 - H.R. eSources

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:54:58 +0000

[...] Dismissal of an “At Pleasure Appointee” (tags: legal termination dismissal) [...]



Comment on Workplace Drug Testing by Drug Testing In The Workplace

Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:30:41 +0000

Dave Interesting topic... I'm working in this industry myself and I don't agree about this in 100%, but I added your page to my bookmarks and hope to see more interesting articles in the future



Comment on Alberta: Picketing of Employee Residences by Employee Drug Testing

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:52:31 +0000

Dave Interesting topic... I'm working in this industry myself and I don't agree about this in 100%, but I added your page to my bookmarks and hope to see more interesting articles in the future



Comment on Drug Testing: Impairment? by Employee Drug Testing

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:52:12 +0000

Dave Interesting topic... I'm working in this industry myself and I don't agree about this in 100%, but I added your page to my bookmarks and hope to see more interesting articles in the future



Comment on Negligent Governance: No Liability by mlmartens

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:24:16 +0000

In your comments, you write "the National Building Code that led to the leaky condo disaster." It is disappointing to see someone repeat the talking point phrase created by the BC building industry as a way to evade respondibility. The Barrett Commissions found that shoddy construction, poor design, and a lack of oversight was responsible for the leaky condo disaster. The building code was not responsible for the leaky condo problem. Hundreds of engineering investigations that have been conducted in leaky condo repairs have found dozens of building code violations in each leaky condo building. There has not been a single leaky condo found that did not have multiple building code violation. Activists have challenged the BC building industry and the developers to produce a leaky condo that was built to code and not a single example has been produced. Please don't resurrect a discredited meme. Editor's note: Mr. Martens is correct in that the case speaks to a code that "allegedly" led to the leaky condo problem. The post has been so modified. Mr. Martens refers to the Barrett Inquiry. Here is the section that speaks to building codes. The Commission's report makes the following statements:
The Commission was unable to find evidence that the building code, per se, has caused the problems. It agrees that the BC Building Code outlines appropriate performance standards for large buildings, as well as prescriptive standards for smaller buildings and houses. Where the building code may have failed is in the definitions of large and small buildings. This has resulted in a number of large complex, wood-frame condominiums being built under guidelines meant for smaller buildings. However, even under the prescriptive approach, the buildings should have been well constructed.
(emphasis in original) and,
The BC Building Code and the Vancouver Building By-Law never explicitly stated that, because of the Lower Mainland's special weather conditions, it may be advisable to take extra care in determining the method of wall construction. They could have done so, and more clearly identified the unique building envelope needs of BCs coastal climate.
In any event, the point of the case and the post, that a claim of negligent governance is extremely difficult to prosecute, stands.



Comment on Teachers in Contempt: Fined $500,000 by lwlibry

Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:17:49 +0000

Hi Johannes! Just come across your blog. Well done! Will subscribe. Hope all is well with you.