. . . . .
(3) That the floor of the basement had been constructed approximately
12 inches below the water table in the area. And not in accordance with
the Ontario Building Code.
He recommended that the house be lifted off the foundation and
that the entire basement be reconstructed so that the floor was
12 inches higher.
 The town’s file on the property revealed that the building
inspection department had approved deficient plans and, on
inspection, had failed to identify several deficiencies in the construction of the basement. As a result, the owners sued the town
and Wilson in Parry Sound action CV-09-098 (the first action).
Lloyd’s defended the action on behalf of the town. Wilson also
defended the action.
 As part of his preparation for a trial, Wilson retained
his own engineer, Edward Poon of Rochon Engineering. Poon
believed that the basement of the house could be repaired and
brought into compliance with the applicable codes without the
necessity of raising the house. He submitted a proposal for doing
so. This proposal was accepted by all the parties and incorporated into minutes of settlement for the first action. The terms of
those minutes were as follows.
(1) The defendants Wilson and Huntsville shall pay to the plaintiffs the sum
of $200,000.00 in full satisfaction of damages and pre-judgment interest.
(2) The defendant Wilson, shall retain Rochon Engineering to provide
stamped drawings acceptable to, and to conduct any inspections required by
the Town of Huntsville, with respect to the following aspects of repair at the
(a) Lateral Support required during the repair
(b) A site drainage plan
(3) Rochon shall provide the Town of Huntsville with a permit application
and the stamped drawings referred to a paragraph 2 above by May 31, 2013
(4) The defendant Town of Huntsville will issue a permit to complete the
repair on the basis of the stamped drawings produced by Rochon engineering by June 30, 2013 and in any event within 10 days of the receipt of an
acceptable permit application completed either by Rochon Engineering or
Burke Restorations at the choice of the defendant Wilson.
(5) The Plaintiffs shall retain Burke Restoration to complete the repair
proposed by Rochon Engineering for the fixed costs set out in the Evaluate
estimates dated May 4, 2012 and the Burke Restoration estimate for site
drainage dated May 1, 2013, attached hereto as schedules A and B. In the
event that Rochon Engineering alters its current repair design with respect
to the foundation or site drainage resulting in additional cost the defendants
shall be responsible for this additional cost.