A non-profit community services agency in southern Alberta undertook a major capital renovation of its main facility approximately 4 years ago. The project transformed a neglected basement into functional program space housing family support services, a community kitchen, and administrative file storage, while also modernizing program rooms on the upper level for youth drop-in and after-school programming serving vulnerable populations. Funding for the renovation came from 3 sources: a provincial government capital grant, contributions from a private foundation, and the agency's own reserves accumulated over years of careful financial management.

The general contractor was a mid-sized construction firm that came recommended by another non-profit in the sector. The contractor engaged subcontractors for specialized work including foundation waterproofing, drywall installation, and mechanical systems. Architectural drawings guided the project, and the agency's executive director and volunteer board of directors approved the scope and budget. The renovation was completed on schedule, and the agency began operating its expanded programming in the newly renovated space.

Approximately 3 years after the renovation's completion, problems began to emerge. The executive director discovered water trickling down an interior wall in the basement file storage room. Dark stains spread across drywall, a persistent musty smell developed, and mold appeared on surfaces installed during the renovation. Further investigation revealed cracks in the foundation walls, visible once staff moved furniture and filing cabinets to trace the source of moisture. Water pooled in areas where after-school programming had operated, and ceiling tiles in 3 of 4 upstairs program rooms showed water damage. The agency was forced to relocate programming to temporary spaces while managing increasingly urgent repairs.

The board of directors—7 volunteer members, most with backgrounds in social services rather than construction or commercial disputes—faced questions about how to respond. The general contractor's lawyer proposed a tolling agreement that would extend the limitation period by 12 months, allowing time to investigate the deficiencies, retain experts, and explore settlement without rushing into litigation. The board, seeing this as a sensible alternative to immediate legal costs, authorized the executive director to sign the agreement. The 12 months passed without resolution.

The agency now confronts a construction deficiency claim involving multiple potential parties—the general contractor, various subcontractors, and possibly design professionals—each of whom may be subject to different limitation period calculations depending on when the agency discovered the defects, when those defects were discoverable, and what contractual or statutory provisions govern each relationship. The government funder has begun asking questions about the capital project's outcome. The volunteer directors must determine what claims remain viable, which may already be statute-barred, and how the tolling agreement affects the analysis for each party in the construction chain.