(b) The flood was due entirely to the failure of the pump and not infiltration;
(c) The evidence of water seepage was as a result of water entrapment
between the floor and sub floor not infiltration through the walls; and
(d) A second sump pump should be installed in the central sump pump pit
installed at the suggestion of the town during the restoration work.
 When the interior walls were removed in July 2015, it
was found that water was indeed still infiltrating through the
walls. The second sump pump in the central pit continues to run
constantly. The town has not yet closed its building file or issued
a final report. And Rochon engineering has refused to re-attend
at the property.
 The statement of claim in the second action alleges:
(a) That the settlement agreement in the first action released the plain-
tiffs’ claims only to the date of settlement.
(b) That the settlement was predicated on the defendant’s representations that their expert’s scope of repair was appropriate to remedy
ongoing water infiltration through the foundation and to bring that
foundation into compliance with the Ontario Building Code and
(c) That it was an implied term of the Minutes of Settlement that the
repair proposed by the defendants would eliminate water infiltration
through the foundation. And bring the foundation into compliance with
the Ontario Building Code and CAN/CSA-S406.
(d) That their continuing loss arises as a result of the defendant’s negli-
gent misrepresentation, and contractual breach of the settlement
agreement the particulars of which are as follows:
( i) They failed to retain a competent engineer to prepare an appro-
priate scope of repair when they knew that the plaintiff would rely
on that engineer’s expertise to repair their home.
( ii) They represented that their engineer’s proposed scheme of repair
was an appropriate remedy to repair the plaintiffs’ home when
it was not, and they knew that the plaintiffs would rely on such
( iii) The defendants or their agent have failed to design and complete
the repair of the property in a good and workmanlike manner,
( iv) The defendants have breached the minutes of settlement by fail-
ing to seek an altered repair scope to remedy the ongoing water
infiltration and to pay those additional costs of repair.
 Counsel are agreed on the approach to be taken by the
court in analyzing cases such as this. Where damage is alleged
to have occurred throughout more than one coverage period, the
2002 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Alie v. Bertrand