More than eight years after a water line broke in front of a Coquitlam hair salon, an entrepreneur is suing the City of Coquitlam and several other defendants for injuries suffered as well as business losses.
Located under a sidewalk in front of Mursal Hair Salon, the water line broke on April 2, 2015, “causing the escape of a significant amount of water,” according to court documents.
The salon’s proprietor, Shakila Unosi, filed a lawsuit against the City of Coquitlam as well as Jack Cewe Ltd., and Evergreen Rapid Transit Holdings Inc.
At the time the water line ruptured, Jack Cewe Ltd. was doing maintenance work on an adjacent water meter and water line connected to the hair salon. That work was part of the Evergreen SkyTrain extension. Coquitlam is responsible for municipal waterlines.
Local news that matters to you
No one covers the Tri-Cities like we do. But we need your help to keep our community journalism sustainable.
Other parties being sued include: SNC-Lavalin Constructors (Western) Inc., Graham Building Services Inc., International Bridge Technologies Canada, Inc., Jacobs Associates Canada Corporation, Rizzani De Eccher Inc., Seli Canada Inc., SNC-Lavalin Constructors (Pacific) Inc., and ABC Company Ltd.
The case was recently in B.C. Supreme Court over whether Mursal Hair Salon’s landlord, Jennifer Wong, could be added as a plaintiff.
Despite objections from the defendants, Justice Kenneth Ball deemed it “just and convenient” to include Wong.
The defendants argued it was too late to revise the initial claim, which was filed on April 2, 2017. Given that pleadings must be served to everyone involved in a claim within one year, the defendants contended the deadline to add Wong expired on April 2, 2018.
The justice noted that the threshold for adding a plaintiff is low: “to ensure all matters in the action” can be properly judged.
“There is a real issue between Ms. Wong and the defendants that is not frivolous,” Ball wrote.
While there was a delay, the defendants had notice of Wong’s claim, Ball wrote.
“While I also do not find the explanation for the delay (error of counsel) to be entirely satisfactory, that consideration is not determinative,” Ball concluded.
The case continues.
