$400K in fines levelled against 2 Oxford County construction companies in fatal 2020 Teeple Terrace collapse

A section of a building that collapsed in London, Ont. is seen on Friday, Dec. 11, 2020. (Source: Jade Doxtator)

Three years after a condominium under construction partially collapsed in west London, Ont., killing two workers, the province has levelled $400,000 in fines against two companies involved in the building’s construction.

According to a news release from the Ministry of Labour, two Oxford County-based construction companies — iSpan Systems LP and East Elgin Concrete Forming Ltd — have been fined $400,000 after a condo building located at 555 Teeple Terrace In London, Ont. suffered a partial collapse just before noon on Dec. 11, 2020.

During a fourth-floor concrete pour, a section of the building under construction had collapsed to the ground, and trapped several workers.

The collapse claimed the lives of two workers, and critically injured four others.

On Friday, the province announced that following guilty pleas under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, iSpan Systems LP was fined $260,000 and East Elgin Concrete Forming Ltd. was fined $140,000.

In addition, the court also imposed a 25 per cent victim fine surcharge, which assists victims of crime.

According to the province, “iSpan Systems LP (iSpan) failed to ensure that a building, structure or any part thereof, was capable of supporting any loads that may be applied to it,” while “East Elgin Concrete Forming Ltd. (East Elgin) failed to provide proper information, instruction and supervision, specifically on the use of proper concrete measuring techniques on the project.”

WHAT LED TO THE BUILDING’S COLLAPSE?

According to the Ministry of Labour’s report, iSpan had fabricated the building’s structural steel frame, including the frames necessary to support the concrete forms. East Elgin was responsible for the concrete pour, and retained supervisory duties while subcontracting the roof pour to another company.

East Elgin employed a laser level and directed the subcontractor to pour to the height of the laser level. However, “the laser level on its own failed to account for the deflection of the steel frame that occurred from the weight of the concrete.”

The use of a dipstick would have remedied this problem by providing a true reading of concrete depth during the deflection process.

Workers were then left with the incorrect assumption that the concrete depth was insufficient at certain locations in the pour. As a result, more concrete was applied than had been specified by iSpan.

“An engineering analysis carried out by MLITSD engineers determined that the concrete placed exceeded the design values by considerable amounts. The weight of the applied concrete contributed to the collapse and/or its severity,” the release reads.

Another contributing cause of the collapse was the failure of a roof beam support, or a “beam pocket.” The loads transferred to this beam pocket from the stud packs exceeded its ultimate load carrying capacity, and resulted in the failure.

The analysis further revealed that while iSpan’s approved engineering drawings specified a 14-gauge deep track for the stud pack, an iSpan employee changed the deep track to a thinner and shorter 16-gauge shallow track. Furthermore, the welds between the studs were placed lower than had been specified by the fabrication drawings, “which may again have reduced its capacity.”

Ultimately, “iSpan’s quality control department failed to detect these errors,” and had “the wall had been fabricated as designed, it would have possessed a sufficient margin of safety to account for the overpouring of concrete and the collapse could have been avoided.”

“iSpan failed, as an employer, to ensure that a building, structure or any part thereof, or any other part of a workplace, whether temporary or permanent, was capable of supporting any loads that may be applied to it in accordance with good engineering practice,” while “East Elgin failed, as an employer, to provide proper information, instruction and supervision to a worker to protect the health and safety of a worker,” the Ministry of Labour report concluded.