- 21 -
of care for architects in development, design, construction, and contract administration processes
of buildings, including high rise condominium buildings.
[113] Overall, I prefer and give greater weight to the opinion of Vincent Alcaide on the relevant
standard of care. Martin Gerskup, while quite experienced and having had experience in smaller
condominium projects, admittedly has no experience as an architect in high rise condominium
design or construction. Conversely, Mr. Alcaide is very experienced in it. Mr. Alcaide also had
access to substantial project documents and correspondence, whereas Mr. Gerskup formed his
opinion with reference to only limited project documents and only three pieces of correspondence.
In my view, the more limited review of project documents impacted Mr. Gerskup’s ability to
inform his opinion with reference to both the parties’ actual dealings and the dealings between the
consultants.
[114] In addition, Mr. Gerskup’s opinion that Onespace was a “managing and coordinating
consultant” is premised on a contractual interpretation that Onespace was responsible for
coordinating the structural, mechanical, electrical, site servicing, shoring, and historical
consultants. As already discussed, I have not accepted that interpretation of the contract, which
impacts the weight I give to Mr. Gerskup’s opinion.
[115] Regardless of the contract, Mr. Gerskup’s opinion is that Onespace had a professional
obligation as an architect to coordinate drawings of other consultants. Mr. Gerskup’s opinion, as
expressed during cross-examination, is that an architect cannot contract out of the coordination
responsibilities contemplated by the OAA Document 600, 2008. That appears premised on the
view stated in his report that, in his experience, “all design decisions are ultimately the
responsibility of the architect.” No cogent foundation for these opinions was established in his
report or at trial.
[116] Vincent Alcaide’s oral testimony often exceeded the scope of his expertise, discussing
topics such as typical developer obligations and engaging in factual interpretations of the
relationship between TMG, Plus, and Onespace. While I have given reduced weight to those
aspects of his testimony, I nevertheless found his opinion on the extent of an architect’s
professional responsibilities for coordination to be helpful and well within his expertise.
[117] Mr. Alcaide’s opinion is that design decisions made by an architect in a high-rise
condominium development are typically limited to general design of the building and appearance,
Building Code related matters, and technical performance of architectural design elements such as
building cladding, roofing, and interior components for the building. Other aspects of the project
are controlled by the developer, including the scope of services of other consultants the developer
has hired. Not only is Mr. Alcaide’s opinion supported by his experience, but it is also consistent
with Plus’ conduct on this project.
[118] Mr. Gerskup opines that a coordination obligation is consistent with the professional
standards outlined in the Architects Act, RSO 1990, c. A.26, and its regulation, RRO 1990, Reg 27.
In his report, Mr. Gerskup specifically discusses the following: