Skip to content

Crown continues to grill former engineer on inspection of doomed mall

Questions so far have focused on a 2009 inspection, but the Sault man was expected to be asked about another inspection that took place the same year as the Elliot Lake collapse
150624robertwoodcourtMP
Robert Wood (right) and his lawyer, Robert MacRae, leave the Sault Ste. Marie Court House in this June, 2015 file photo. Michael Purvis/SooToday

Robert Wood's third day on the witness stand — and second under cross examination — continued Thursday with the prosecution again grilling the former engineer about his inspections of the Algo Centre Mall, where two women lost their lives in a 2012 cave-in.

Wood first inspected the Elliot Lake mall in 2009 and again in April 2012, a couple of months before the fatal collapse that killed Lucie Aylwin, a 37-year-old lottery kiosk employee, and her customer Doloris Perrizzolo, 74.

The pair died when a 40-foot-by-80-foot section of the mall's rooftop parking deck fell on the kiosk and food court area on June 23, 2012.

Assistant Crown attorney Marc Huneault began cross-examining the Sault Ste. Marie resident Wednesday afternoon, focusing on Wood's 2009 inspection and subsequent report, which was done for mall owner Robert Nazarian.

The Sudbury prosecutor, whose questioning Thursday again centred on the initial inspection, will question Wood today about his 2012 examination of the facility.

Wood has pleaded not guilty to two counts of criminal negligence causing death and a single count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, stemming from the collapse that also injured dozens of other people.

Wood's October 2009 report was prompted by a remedy order issued by municipal authorities after building and fire department inspections discovered damage to fireproofing and rust from long-term leaking on structural steel in the mall.

On Thursday, he again maintained that he had been retained at that time to specifically inspect the areas where there were deficiencies. 

Huneault pointed out that the order of remedy indicated that the facility owner should have the entire mall inspected by a licensed engineer.

"You agree that's inconsistent with your interpretation in terms of scope," the prosecutor asked, receiving a yes answer from the witness, who later said he had been asked to look at the structural component of the order.


What's next?


If you would like to apply to become a Verified reader Verified Commenter, please fill out this form.



About the Author: Linda Richardson

Linda Richardson is a freelance journalist who has been covering Sault Ste. Marie's courts and other local news for more than 45 years.
Read more