there a conscious and deliberate decision taken, in 2014, to cover up an
incident involving the collapse of a cinder block wall at Roncalli School?

knew of the incident? And who took the decision to bury the issue?

questions are just a beginning.

would argue safety at a school is an imperative?

seems not everyone.

The provincial
government chose to permit Roncalli School, located in the Airport Heights area
of St. John’s, to continue to function even as it underwent reconstruction on a
piecemeal basis.  

Roncalli became
a school and a construction zone at the same time. That decision held inherent
risks, and not just with respect to the additional cost of carrying on a major construction project on an occupied premises.

The risk of
combining two incompatible activities demanded the highest possible safety
standard for the 410 students enrolled K to Grade 6, distributed throughout 21
classrooms; the statistics provided on the School’s web site. 

Premier Kathy
Dunderdale and then Education Minister Clyde Jackman announced the
$20.7 million project for Roncalli Elementary School, in 2012.  Jackman was quoted in the

cinder block wall prior to collapse

Government’s Press
Statement stating the “…project will see the construction of a large extension
as well as the redevelopment of the existing school.

“(It) will
include a new food service area, a gymnasium, and 20 new classrooms, while the
redevelopment will reconfigure space to include four new classrooms, a
multi-purpose/lunch room and a resource centre.”

The Statement
continued: “The work will be carried out in two phases, with the extension
expected to be complete by September, 2014, and the redeveloped section by
September, 2015.” 

Fast Forward to September 2014
As the school
opening date became imminent, in September 2014, the English Language School
District told parents, in a Letter, that the board will not open the school
until Monday, Sept. 8; a week later than other schools. The CBC, reporting on the delay, said “Part of the

school remains a construction zone, and fences
will be erected to prevent children from gaining access.”

Parents might
have been left with the impression not just readiness but safety was a matter
of paramount concern to the school board.

But an incident occurred
two weeks after the school opened, on Sunday, September 21st 2014, that
tested any such preoccupation. The incident brings into question those who had knowledge
of the incident – their judgement possibly as deficient as the cinder block wall
that disintegrated on that windy afternoon. 

The concrete
block wall was two storeys high and measured
25 feet by 50

Contractor’s Report, found by this Blogger, stated an employee “entered the
site at 5:42 pm, Sunday September 21, 2014 and noticed that the wall had
collapsed”. Winds, “at that time”, were estimated at between 40-60 km.

The Contractor’s Report is important for two reasons. First, it proves there was plenty of time to warn of the need to close the school and to advise the parents and the public of what had occurred.

collapsed wall: “workers didn’t take time to dowel in rebar
or ensure plates that were attached…”

Of course, if wind was the sole reason for the collapse of the wall the
secrecy would still not be justified.

But the wind was just a trigger, not the cause. 
The Contractor’s Report noted “insufficient support on top, bottom
and sides”. 
As to the reasons the conditions existed, the Report states:
“workers didn’t take time to dowel in rebar or ensure that plates were attached
to wall”.

It did not say anything about supervision or inspections but then that was not its purpose.
The Report also notes a second
cinder block wall was partially completed but had not collapsed.
When the school buses began to arrive 14 hours after the
contractor’s man reported the incident, government Inspectors had not written
the contractor a “stop work” order.
In fact, no “stop work” order was ever issued.
No structural engineer had even begun to inspect the collapsed
works by the time the school opened on Monday morning.
Students were permitted on the site and within the premises;
instruction was permitted to continue in the absence of a Report, from either a
qualified or an independent entity, detailing why the wall had collapsed or if
the building was safe for entry. Government was in possession only of a report
prepared by the contractor.

They were not in possession, either, of analysis or investigation
as to whether other newly constructed concrete block walls on the premises were
built sub-standard and at risk of collapse, too.

In contrast, when a a three pound clamp fell from the GFS Grand Banks offshore
drill rig Husky suspended operations pending an investigation. 

Material dropped from a crane at Muskrat Falls is described as a “serious safety
incident”; the whole site is shut down.  

Both incidents lead the news at every outlet. 
No sign of 15M dowels tying wall to foundation
At Roncalli, the children were none the wiser the school had
experienced a significant incident with major safety implications.
The parents weren’t notified that the incident had occurred. 
There was no public announcement, then or since.
It wasn’t on the public media; social media or otherwise.
The incident was hushed up.
Isn’t secrecy a corrosion that that facilitates only more secrecy?
Isn’t exposure the only protection afforded a public kept in the
Records obtained by this Blogger, under Access to Information
legislation, include emails and a Report by a structural engineer who investigated after the school children were in their
seats for most of the day.

One email, dated 11:11 am. Monday September 22, 2014, (a second email was obtained and is attached to this Link) from the
contractor to public servants and contractor personnel and to consultants, confirms
remediation work on the second wall had not even begun by that time. QUOTE: 

“Baraco will be
temporary supporting the block wall from the inside on Level 2 with wood
bracing. This will assist with any amount of force being applied from the outside.
We will also be installing wind barriers to assist any force being applied from
the inside. Currently, the bent plate is not installed at level 2 or the roof

A DBA Consulting Engineers Ltd. Report to Department of Transportation and Works, dated October 20, 2014, states that a site visit by the structural engineer did
not occur until the “afternoon of September 22, 2014”. 
Equally disturbing are other aspects of the Report which confirm the
observations of the Contractor’s Report. 
But the Structural Engineer adds:
“At the time of the collapse the
wall stood approximately two storeys high without any lateral support. It is
also noted that another portion of block wall, located on Line Y5 between Lines
X15 and X25, was partially constructed, similar to the wall that collapsed, but
did not experience the same outcome.
During our visit, preceding the
collapse, several structural deficiencies were identified in the wall that
collapsed. These deficiencies, however, were not the direct cause of the
collapse. The wall collapse occurred because it was not adequately braced at
the time of the wind event. The contractor did not provide sufficient bracing
to stabilize the wall, during construction, and as a result the high wind
speeds caused the wall to become unstable and topple over.”
Then the Engineer describes the specific deficiencies in the wall
prior to the collapse:
1. The 15M dowels to be drilled and
epoxy set into the existing foundation wall, as specified on structural Section
1/7.10, were not installed.
2. The adjustable masonry ties,
used to tie the block walls to the floor beams, as specified on structural
Detail 1/7.10, were not installed.
3. The strap anchors, used to tie
the block walls to the steel columns, as specified on structural Detail 6/7.04,
were not installed.
Photographs of the rubble easily confirm the Engineer’s assessment.
The wall was not tied in to the main structure at any location: the roof, foundation,
floor beams or columns.
It was an accident waiting to happen.
A windy day accommodated the event; luckily, it did not occur when
a worker (or a child) was walking (or playing) in the area.
When have fences ever kept kids out? What if it had not collapsed
that day, but some other?
Was the second wall removed so that the original engineering specification
was strictly adhered to or was it merely “fixed” with bracing? It is too late
to properly tie the wall to the
foundation once it is erected.
If something so basic, yet so important, fails the scrutiny of
inspection, should we not ask what else might have been overlooked on that
construction site?
excavator begins to clean up rubble from wall. note the time the image taken 9:10am.

This Blogger has learned that the scene of the collapsed wall
quickly disappeared from view; the cinder block rubble cleaned up and disposed
of. One photograph shows the excavator removing the rubble at 9:10 am. that Monday morning. The photographs, at least to an experienced eye, also expose the
essential missing parts of a sound and safe concrete cinder block structure.

Undoubtedly, the workers were at greatest risk.  A collapse of that size could have endangered a good many lives.
But what if children had been playing in the area when the
construction site was unattended?
What if it had occurred at a different time than on a Sunday
afternoon?  It was windy that Monday, too.
Those questions are certainly relevant, but that the school
children were actually permitted onto the site and into their classrooms, in
the absence of a thorough inspection by qualified people, has no hypothetical
underpinning. It is a fact. It happened.
Either someone refused to make a decision to close the school and
announce publicly the reason, else someone authorized the school’s opening and
kept the matter secret.
Either case constitutes an unimaginable lapse of judgement; in
fact, several lapses occurred if disclosure and transparency are matters on
which you place a value.
It would be unthinkable that teachers and other staff would have
known and chose to place their charges at risk rather than sound the alarm.
Most likely, the decision was made at a more senior level.
There is much about this incident we need to uncover. The public
should demand answers to a plethora of questions. I will cite the ones already
noted and add several more:
We need to know why government inspectors failed to immediately place
a stop work order on the Contractor pending a full investigation of the
incident and a full appraisal of the Company’s work.
Temporary support?

Why weren’t walls (other than the two noted) examined, by a
structural engineer, for possible sub-standard workmanship prior to the school
opening on Monday morning, September 22, 2014? 

Have they been properly examined since?

Was the temporary “fix” allowed to stand or was that wall demolished and replaced with one that met the standard originally specified?

That said, why wasn’t the school closed, at least until the structural
engineer had performed an investigation of the incident and provided written confirmation
that the Building was safe to enter?

Why was no public notice issued?
Why were the parents not notified?
Who besides the Contractor, the provincial Department of
Transportation and Works, knew about the collapse of the wall and when?
When were officials of the Department of Education informed of the
incident? Why did they not act, immediately, to close the school?
When were officials of the Eastern School District informed of the
Why did they not act to close the school?
Was the collapse of a 25 foot by 50 foot cinder block wall and the
possibility of other wall failures thought to be significant enough only to be worthy
of a cloak of security?
What official(s) made that judgement, that decision?
Or, as seems to be the case, was there a cover–up at Roncalli
School involving more than one senior official and more than one Government Department?
The people involved have had nearly a year to reflect on their decisions.
The public deserves answers to all those questions, now!

Or, will we be required to conduct further inquiries via the new Access
to Information Act until the truth is ferreted out?

Des Sullivan
Des Sullivan
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada Uncle Gnarley is hosted by Des Sullivan, of St. John's. He is a businessman engaged over three decades in real estate management and development companies and in retail. He is currently a Director of Dorset Investments Limited and Donovan Holdings Limited. During his early career he served as Executive Assistant to Premier's Frank D. Moores (1975-1979) and Brian Peckford (1979-1985). He also served as a Part-Time Board Member on the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB). Uncle Gnarley appears on the masthead representing serious and unambiguous positions on NL politics and public policy. Uncle Gnarley is a fiscal conservative possessing distinctly liberal values and a non-partisan persusasion. Those values and opinions underlie this writer's views on NL's politics, economy and society. Uncle Gnarley publishes Monday mornings and more often when events warrant.


Bill left public life shortly after the signing of the Atlantic Accord and became a member of the Court of Appeal until his retirement in 2003. During his time on the court he was involved in a number of successful appeals which overturned wrongful convictions, for which he was recognized by Innocence Canada. Bill had a special place in his heart for the underdog.

Churchill Falls Explainer (Coles Notes version)

If CFLCo is required to maximize its profit, then CFLCo should sell its electricity to the highest bidder(s) on the most advantageous terms available.


This is the most important set of negotiations we have engaged in since the Atlantic Accord and Hibernia. Despite being a small jurisdiction we proved to be smart and nimble enough to negotiate good deals on both. They have stood the test of time and have resulted in billions of dollars in royalties and created an industry which represents over a quarter of our economy. Will we prove to be smart and nimble enough to do the same with the Upper Churchill?


  1. This warrants more investigation. Where is the professional association of engineers on this? If there was a public safety issue does it exists? What was done to ensure everything else was constructed correctly?

    Who did not act and why?

    What did the consulting engineer do?

    This is very concerning. The department of education need to come clean.

  2. I do not believe this is the cover-up/conspiracy it is being made out to be. It is a construction incident not unlike other collapses of structures during construction. I can think of at least four others off the top of my head including a concrete block wall at another school, the sports plex, and a couple of wood large framed structures in town. Unfortunately these structures are most vulnerable during construction and unexpected wind conditions can play havoc. This of course is no excuse for deficient construction (missing dowels and supports) but it is a risk associated with construction even if constructed properly.

    Besides the issue of cover-ups the other main concern raised is the safety of the children and general public. Truthfully they were not at risk due to this incident. The construction site is off limits to all public all of the time. Yes it is possible that someone would sneak in but that can be said of any location with potential dangers (electrical substation, docks, street excavation, residential construction, etc). The real people that were in danger were the contractors and any other authorized personnel permitted in the construction area. I would imagine that Occupational Health and Safety were involved in this incident from that point of view.

    I certainly cannot speak for the proper construction of other walls that may have been in the vicinity of the occupied building, but speaking as a professional engineer involved in this type of work, areas of the building handed over for occupation would have been inspected and any deficiencies corrected. For the collapsed wall it is entirely likely that the structural engineers had not been informed to inspect this portion of the work.

    I do not agree with assertions that the engineering consultants are at fault. These walls were constructed over a period of a couple of days and the engineer is not on site full time. If you want to raise a real issue regarding engineers and how they do their job please put pressure on the government to actually use any pay for their services. Unfortunately engineers are treated as commodities with the cheapest ones being selected for projects. Government do not want to pay engineers for their services and try to offload all the liability to them and the contractors. Ask yourself, when you go looking for a lawyer do you shop around for the cheapest hourly rate – no. Why is it that that is the way engineers are typically hired? Same can be said of contractors, the cheapest not necessary the best get the work.

  3. I am sure everything was above board during uncle gnarleys time as executive assistant to Frank Moores.This is someone who has an axe to grind with the provincial government.This is fear mongering.These things happen at construction sites.At no time were any children or teachers in danger.

  4. To be quite clear, I'm not a PC supporter but in this case I have to side with Dave Brazil. The only danger here was to the construction workers and maybe this should be investigated. If you can't find anything better to criticize the PCs about, you should stick to real estate.

  5. There was danger and ignorance by the ministry, the school board reps who were a part of the operations or clean up following the incident. Including representatives from transportation and works. As well when reported to the ministry it was not investigated. Many laws were broken, children were/are not occupying a sound structure and parents and teachers should be concerned.

  6. There was danger and ignorance by the ministry, the school board reps who were a part of the operations or clean up following the incident. Including representatives from transportation and works. As well when reported to the ministry it was not investigated. Many laws were broken, children were/are not occupying a sound structure and parents and teachers should be concerned.

  7. @ anonymous 13:34. The intent to hide the incident was very true. And as for children. In the photo of the collapsed wall, immediately to the right is a second wall exposed to the same wind load, made the same day, by the same tradesman. That wall to the right leads to a staircase in the occupied chool. Required by fire code as an active and available exit in case of emergency. Next to that, the remaining face is the back wall of 8 classrooms. The construction phase does carry with it the threat of major damage which a completed structure may not under normal conditions but appropriate measures must be taken. Accidents happen, but not only did Barack and its contractors fail to do the right thing prior to the incident, they also did the wrong thing again by trying to cover it up. The ministry, transportation and works, Baraco…. Many people broke the law at this time and intentionally so. The lengths that they went to to cover up the incident and maintain production were incredibly shameful. And to have the ministry involved in covering up the incident, which did happen is astonishing. The solution required by the engineers was not met and again they turned a cold shoulder and made away with another inappropriate response. What the engineers decide on, was never met. It appears as if it was though.