Mould News In Canada

Is Toxic Mould Making You Sick?
by Janice and George Mucalov

With the growing awareness of the health problems associated with mould in homes and buildings, more people are starting to sue - and win.

Over 100,000 species of moulds exist; most people aren't affected by them. But when mould spores get wet, they can reproduce and grow, causing some people to suffer nasal stuffiness, eye irritation, coughing and other allergy-like symptoms.

One particularly nasty mould - the black-coloured Stachybotrys chartarum sometimes found inside wet walls - is linked to headaches, sore throat, nose bleeds, flu symptoms, fatigue, skin irritation, diarrhea and hair loss, some of which may be permanent.

Problems occur when a leaky roof, faulty plumbing or sewer backup allows moisture to seep inside a home or building, providing the perfect environment for mould to proliferate. Drywall, carpets, wood floors and ceiling tiles are all common contaminants if they get wet.

This has led to an explosion of mould lawsuits, especially in the U.S.

In one notorious case, a Texas insurer was ordered to pay $32 million for failing to properly fix a family's toxic mould problem. As a result of a plumbing leak, mould had grown in the hardwood floors of their 22-room dream home, causing the mother and three-year-old son to cough up blood and making the father so sick he had to leave his job as an investment banker.

Erin Brockovich - made famous by the recent Julia Roberts movie - is even reported to have sued the actor Tom Selleck's brother over a home she bought from him, which she claims was poorly built, leading to mould that has caused her health problems.

In Canada, toxic mould cases are relatively new. But they're coming.

A $2 billion lawsuit was recently started against the Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board outside of Toronto, claiming that school children were getting sick from mould exposure in portable classrooms. More suits are likely to follow with the closure of the historic Alberta Court of Appeal building in Calgary after toxic mould was found, leading to respiratory problems among judges and staff.

Here in BC, the issue of mould has already been raised in at least one leaky condo case.

If you're unlucky enough to suffer a mould infestation, your losses can be quite substantial. Quite apart from the health problems and any loss of income that may cause, there are potentially hefty repair and clean-up costs (improper handling can make a mould problem worse, so it's sometimes cheaper and more effective to demolish a building and rebuild it completely rather than trying to decontaminate it).

Mould lawsuits also aren't cheap. Testing by engineers and perhaps microbiologists may be needed to determine the cause and extent of the mould; reports from doctors and/or occupational health specialists are also likely to be required. Still, if you're affected, the benefits of litigation may outweigh the costs.

Who is liable if mould is making you sick?

Landlords have a duty to maintain their property to a reasonable standard, so tenants may be able to look to their landlord. If indoor mould is bad enough to affect your health, the building may be unfit to live in. The landlord could also be held responsible for any health problems you suffer if reasonable steps aren't taken to prevent the harm.

Sellers and their agents may also be on the hook if they sell a home without disclosing a potential mould problem - they may well have a duty to disclose hazardous conditions known to exist in their property.

And construction contractors, designers and past owners of a home or building may all be liable for any construction defects resulting in a mould infestation.

Insurers are likely to be the hardest hit. A landlord, homeowner or construction contractor who is sued would immediately ask their insurers to defend the claim. Depending on the policy, the insurers are the ones who often ultimately end up paying.

In light of recent developments, landlords, homeowners, architects, contractors and others potentially at risk would be wise to address any potential mould problems now to avoid being sued in the first place.

Mould worries real estate sector

Industry facing more claims over damage
related to sometimes-deadly spores


By ALBERT WARSON 

Special to The Globe and Mail

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 – Print Edition, Page B14

Invisible mould spores drifting freely in and out of commercial buildings, public institutions and homes are the latest problem to strike the real estate industry.

They have been responsible for billions of dollars in property damage and lawsuits in the United States, and cases in Canada are becoming more common. The spores can make people sick and even kill vulnerable patients in hospitals. And they can lurk anywhere, unlike that other costly menace, asbestos, which is visible and contained within specific building materials.

In the United States, the number of mould claims has exploded in recent years.

One major insurer in Texas reported 12 claims involving mould issues in 1999, 499 the following year and 10,000 in 2001.

In Canada, hospitals, school boards, provincial governments, contractors, developers and building managers are gearing up to combat mould.

Mould, as primordial as its fungi family, thrives in either wet, humid places or dusty environments. Toxic mould, as the most dangerous strains are called, can establish "colonies" within 24 hours.

Mould grows rapidly, like its mushroom cousins, but unlike mushrooms, the spores or seeds that perpetuate the species can be dispersed throughout almost any building -- including hospitals.

In July, 2001, Health Canada issued procedural standards intended to prevent the spread of construction-related infections in health care facilities. It also identified 242 cases of infections -- which claimed dozens of patients' lives -- related to construction or renovations inside or adjacent to Canadian and U.S. hospitals between 1978 and 1998.

Hospitals are the worst place for mould to grow, says Bruce Stewart, senior vice-president of Pinchin Environmental Ltd., a consulting firm based in Mississauga. That's because patients with immune systems compromised by medication and treatment might inhale mould spores disturbed by construction and develop life-threatening or fatal fungal infections.

"Buildings accumulate ambient dust on ceiling tiles, inside air ducts and wall cavities," he says. "Dust particles blown in and out of buildings always include mould spores."

Mr. Stewart can verify that mould awareness is growing. Pinchin now takes on about 500 mould-related testing and cleanup jobs a year involving all types of buildings in Ontario and Manitoba. Three years ago it handled only 100 cases. The figures don't include similar work by affiliated companies in the other provinces.

Glenn Gibson, chief executive officer of Crawford Adjusters Canada, the Mississauga-based subsidiary of a U.S. insurance services company, says he was "shocked" last year to learn the extent of mould litigation in Canada. While speaking to 120 commercial and residential claims and property managers in Toronto about toxic mould claims, he asked how many audience members had a claim in progress. About three-quarters of them raised their hands.

Last May, a committee of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, a national insurance industry trade association, recommended that insurers tighten up wording in their policies concerning mould-related damage or injury. It noted that skyrocketing claims in the United States, mainly involving water and flood damages to residences, could spill into Canada.

"The insurance industry does not want to provide coverage for maintenance type issues, like continuous leakage," says Dave Way, co-ordinator of the IBC's standards and practices committee. "Damage has to be sudden and accidental, like a sewer backup."

Meanwhile, the Ottawa-based Canadian Construction Association is expecting a report this spring from a task force it set up to study the liability implications of mould for contractors. Jeff Morrison, the CCA's director of communications, says the task force will also create guidelines on how to minimize mould in new construction and clean away old mould during renovations.

All this attention has been stirred up by media coverage over the past few years of throat and eye irritations, stomach disorders, headaches, occupational asthma and other respiratory ailments allegedly caused by poor indoor air quality or "sick building syndrome."

Since 1995, the Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia governments have developed guidelines for the detection and elimination of potentially hazardous mould. Elimination could mean anything from drying out and cleaning contaminated areas to replacing walls, ceilings and leaking roofs, to gutting an interior to demolition.

School portables are especially troublesome, Mr. Stewart says, because they aren't efficiently ventilated or drained, are usually situated on damp soil and have structural divisions with openings that support mould "colonies." Those colonies can feed on just about any material except hard surfaces, such as steel and glass.

In 1999, a couple launched a $20-million lawsuit against the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board in Ontario on behalf of their daughter, alleging health problems resulting from mould in a relocatable classroom module. It fizzled in court, but the high-profile uproar persuaded the provincial government to cover the cost of building environmentally safe schools to replace the portables, school board spokesperson Bruce Campbell said.

Getting rid of mould is costly -- the Ontario government spent $40-million to clean up school buildings in 2000 and $19-million during 2001-02 to rip apart most of a Newmarket courthouse.

Ontario Realty Corp., which manages the province's real estate assets, increased spending from $71-million on mould-related repairs and maintenance at government buildings to an estimated $91.8-million over a three-year period ending March 31, 2003, said Karen Raz, an ORC spokeswoman.

ORC has tackled mould problems in police stations, courthouses, jails and government office buildings across the province since 2000.

Mould lurking in office towers is most likely to be found in class B and C buildings, rather than in class A buildings, where maintenance programs --monitoring air quality and routine inspections for hidden mould growth -- tend to be more thorough, says François Dépelteau, president and CEO of Montreal-based Alizé Building Technologies.

Alizé manages technical operations and maintenance for 230 commercial properties in Quebec encompassing 25 million square feet. "Preventive maintenance and interior air quality monitoring in line with industry standards and inspections of areas where moisture can accumulate are necessary to stop mould proliferation and other types of contamination," he says.

Ian Stewart, Toronto chapter president of the Building Owners and Managers Association, recalls only five cases in that city where mould was removed from high-rise office towers.

Association members, who own and manage buildings, recognize that buildings should be designed to provide adequate dehumidification, cooling, heating and ventilation, and they make sure those are constantly maintained, he says.

SOURCES:

http://www.hgelaw.com/publications/vansun/toxic_mould.htm
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20030121/PRmould

To review our catalog of our mould products and services, please click:
Product Catalog

If you have any questions, please email international mould expert
Phillip Fry: envirodangers@yahoo.com