Ontario house failures – Mike Holmes homes
jollygreenshortguy
| Posted in General Questions on
I don’t live in the area so this may be old news for those who do. But this short video looks at design/construction failures in homes around Ontario. It’s very interesting but lacking depth, as it’s just a brief news report.
When there is a plane crash the FAA investigates and releases a report. When there is a house fire, fire departments and insurance companies sometimes do the same.
Does anyone know if a more detailed report will be issued regarding this set of house failures? It seems like there should be some organization, perhaps the ICC, that routinely investigates events like this.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Search and download construction details
Replies
Here are some news article links:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/mike-holmes-tarion-lawsuit-1.6624921
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2045340/mike-holmes-approved-homes-demolished-due-to-alleged-defects
Thanks.
JGSG,
Who is responsible for the problems - the builder, or approving authority - won't be clear until after the litigation around it is complete. Why it's making news is that a high profile celebrity builder endorsed the project, but took no role in ensuring the quality of the houses.
I imagine the litigation will drag on for years. I gather there were structural failures as well. Whether they were due to poor execution or poor design is a question I expect people will be asking. I'd be really surprised if the structural engineers did a bad job. The engineering of houses like these is very simple and straightforward.
I was just expressing the thought that it seems like some kind of independent investigative body, like the FAA or the fire department, could also step in and take a look around, not for litigation purposes, but to try to learn from the mistakes and incorporate them into upgraded standards.
Personally, for what it's worth, I think Holmes' endorsement does put him on the hook for some of the culpability. Both he and the developer are profiting off his name recognition.
JGSG,
Yes, you don't often hear about what sound like irremediable structural issues in houses. It's surprising they got completed, and it will be interesting to see how that came about, but I suspect the answer is pretty mundane, and I doubt there are many useful lessons for the rest of us. I guess we will see.
I'm reserving my feelings about Mike Holmes for less formal discussion boards.
Mike Holmes has been embroiled in something like this before. Several years ago his namesake magazine suddenly folded and thousands of subscribers were unable to get their money back. They said that right up until the day the magazine went bankrupt the company was accepting new subscriptions, but when Mike Holmes was personally contacted by the press he said that he had no direct control over the company that actually published the magazine so he wasn't responsible or liable.
At that time, I thought it would have been a classy thing for him to send each one of those subscribers a copy of his new book (which came out a few months after the magazine folded). I'm sure he could have got them at cost but few celebrities ever think of stepping up to the plate and making things right when the company they "rent out" their name to fails.
Quick perusal of the video I saw lack of joist hangers. Who doesn't use joist hangers in the last 30 years? No building inspectors in CA? Even joist hangers can be retroed. Tear the building down? What do you have to screw up to make it cost effective to tear it down?
gusfhb,
It breaks my heart to see houses - especialy new ones - demolished like that, with no effort to salvage materials.
Right?
the fookin windows alone!!
The city and the developer both insisted that the homes could have been remediated however Tarion (who manages home builder warranties in Ontario) had them torn down. Other houses in the same development have been/are being remediated but in many cases the home owners had to move out (of their brand new home) for over a year and are still dealing with external issues after having moved back in. It's a major mess.
I wonder if this is like Insurance companies totaling your car. A big part of it is unknown and ongoing costs. They don't want to be responsible. But at least car insurance companies sell your car for scrap or rebuild
gusfhb,
True. They probably look at it through a different lens, entirely based on whether it makes sense financially to put the time in.
My reading is that if you know how to work the system, you can get the house condemned and get a buyout. I can't blame someone that has gone through that much for taking that route.
Looking at the demo pictures, the whole house was cathedraled, so I'm guessing that beam behind the kitchen cabinets should have been holding up the roof but based on where the shoring was, they landed the roof posts over joists instead.
There is also looks like a lot of spray foam, so maybe getting at the structural bits was just too hard.
Having dealt with older houses with much more questionable structural issues, I'm with the builder, this could have all been fixed.
My guess the siding issues was some bad flashing, again fixable.
Sad to see something like that come down, what a waste.
I guess it does go along with Holmes motto, tear it down and make it right.
Did they ever say what exactly was wrong with these houses that they had to be demolished? What was so bad that they were required to be torn down?
"Did they ever say what exactly was wrong with these houses"
No just that the cost to repair exceeded the cost to rebuild and I am sure the lawyers will both have a lot to say about that.
Walta
Finally, a comment from Mike Holmes.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/holmes-response-lawsuit-1.7109625
Yeah, puts his name aaaalll over something then walks back responsibility.
Shrug
You only get one name[usually]
After all that time, that was a pretty weak response. Even the professional spin doctors couldn't give a good explanation.
Translation: "The builder who paid me to endorse their company built the crap houses and I wasn't able to tell anyone they were crap houses because the end customers didn't hire me to do any inspections or pay for any upgraded materials. Even though my brand is built on giving customers an enhanced expectation that projects will be done right and I supposedly verify all the companies, make sure you read all of the fine print disclaimers and hire me double check my endorsement."
In reality, the builder could have given Holmes access to the homes at any time to to inspect them, it really wasn't worth their time and effort and it's at cross purposes with the Builder and Holmes making the most money.
I don't put much stock in the celebrity builder endorsed companies by Holmes or Baeumler and others because it's just another mouth to feed at the trough that you have to pay for. But I have friends who know nothing about construction and what projects should cost and really don't have the motivation to find out, so I guess these "approved" companies should mean something to them.
Appears the only requirement to build a “Homes Approved Homes” is to pay him.
Seem sad that his reputation was for sale and he did so little to protect his reputation.
Walta
Walta,
The seems to be the long and the short of it.