(6) Burke Restorations shall use best efforts to complete all repairs at the
plaintiffs’ home by October 31, 2013 and in accordance with the scope of
repair specified by Rochon Engineering and at the direction of the Town
(7) The defendants Wilson and Huntsville shall pay a contribution to the
plaintiffs’ costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $25,000.00
(8) Upon settlement the parties through their solicitors, shall execute
releases acceptable to counsel and incorporating these minutes of settlement
and a consent to the dismissal of the claim on a without costs basis. The
releases to be held in escrow pending the completion of the repairs to the
plaintiffs’ home. The plaintiffs shall take out the dismissal order.
 The parties executed the releases called for in the minutes.
Lloyd’s paid the owners $200,000. The owners retained Burke
restorations and that company carried out the work called for by
Rochon Engineering between July and December 2013. The
owners paid for the work.
 During the course of the restoration, both Edward Poon
and the town carried out regular inspections. The town required
the installation of a second sump pump not called for by Rochon.
Mr. Poon amended the scope of the repairs to include additional
bracing. This extra work was paid for by the defendants as
called for in the minutes.
 Upon completion, the owners sought confirmation from
Mr. Poon that the work had been completed in accordance with
the Rochon Engineering plan. They also sought a final inspection report from the town. Mr. Poon provided a letter confirming
that the work on the house had been completed in accordance
with the Rochon plan and that it complied with the Ontario
Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12. He did not, however, sign off on
the exterior grading portion of the Rochon plan as by the date of
his inspection, the ground was snow covered. The town has not
issued a final report.
 The pleadings are silent as to whether the releases
remain in escrow. However, the action has not been dismissed as
it is still listed as active on the court’s database.
 Over the winter of 2014, the owners refinished the interior of the basement. However, when spring arrived the sump
pump in the north-east corner of the basement began to run constantly and its discharge flooded the property’s driveway. The
pump failed on May 15, 2015, and six inches of water accumulated in the basement.
 Mr. Poon attended on May 30 and opined that
(a) The ponding in the driveway was as a result of the position of the sump
pump outlet and therefore a pre-existing condition and not part of the
work designed by Rochon;