In 1972 a Winnipeg land developer entered into a contract with the defendant (Bird Construction) for the erection of a 15-story, 94-unit apartment. The plans were prepared by the interveners, an architectural rm (Smith Carter). The building was completed in December 1974. In 1978 ownership of the building was transferred to the plaintiff (Winnipeg Condominium). In 1982 Winnipeg Condominium became concerned about the exterior cladding which consisted of 4inch thick slabs of stone. They consulted Smith Carter and a rm of structural engineers who reported that the cladding was structurally sound and recommended minor works which were carried out. On May 8, 1989 a story high section of cladding, approximately 20 feet in length, fell from the ninth story. Winnipeg Condominium spent in excess of $1.5 million removing and replacing the entire cladding. Winnipeg Condominium commenced an action in negligence against Bird Construction, Smith Carter and the cladding sub-contractors (Kornovski and Keller). Bird and Kornovski and Keller moved to strike out the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. This motion was dismissed by Galanchuk J Bird appealed and the Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Winnipeg Condominium appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

If you had decision making power over this case how would you rule?