 |
LEGAL Representation
Pro Dynamic and its specialists are experienced and versed in representation of their clients in legal disputes and insurance claims arbitration. The following describes our past case involvement:
- Town of Three Hills v. Bearden Engineering Consultants et al. (2016-2022; an Alberta Court of King's Bench action). In this action, we were retained as the Expert Witness on the defendants' side. The town in Central Alberta was suing the engineering consultant in the expansion of the town's hockey arena, whose roof has partially collapsed under the weight of snow in March 2014. The action was eventually settled without going to formal testimony. In the preliminary testimony we prepared, we proved that erratic changes of the code requirements over the period of the building service and the exceedingly lean design of the building by the supplier's engineer ought to be subtracted from the Defendant's liability.
- Samson Engineering v. Aviva Insurance (2021-2022; an insurance dispute arbitration). In this dispute, occurring in Manitoba, we were retained as the Expert Consultant on the insurance claimant's side. The claimant's office building was partially destroyed by an impact of a runaway city transit bus. The insurance company denied the claim with the exception of only one column that directly sustained the collision. Pro Dynamic performed a forensic investigation of the road accident that led to the impact, static and dynamic analysis of the building and substantiated the suffering party's claim that the impact was powerful enough to cause the amount of the damages they alleged. The case was heard and our testimony presented; but the final decision was not published, since it was not a court action.
- Roberts v Wikeruk, Town of Creston BC, Hawkview Estates, and Pennco Engineering (2018-past 2023; a Supreme Court of British Columbia action). In this action, we were retained as the Expert Consultant on the side of defense of Pennco Engineering. The residential subdivision was constructed on a filled-in glacial gully, which allegedly caused cracks and deformations of the buildings. The subject of the case from our perspective was the extent of engineer's professional liability and due diligence. Interpreting the results of soil testing, deformation and cracking evidence of the subject building, we were able to substantiate adequate engineering practice by the defendant consultant. The eventual outcome of the action is unknown to us.