I'm not trying to make the case that liability for delays should come back to the Provincial Ministry or to TransLink. I'm just trying to point out that their risk is not reduced to zero. Contract law can be a tricky thing, and disputes are nearly always resolved with compromise and shared responsibility.
Now, to the main point at hand - Everyone here should read at least pages 26 to 29 of the Geotechnical Baseline Report:
http://docs.openinfo.gov.bc.ca/D27323814A_Response_Package_TRA-2014-00090.PDF
Does it not look as though the tunnel builders studiously ignored the direct and specific warnings and instructions on page 27 that "...these materials will flow immediately upon exposure...(r)apid support of these materials and ground improvement are required...," at least for the first 2 maintenance stops at Chateau Place and at Cecile Drive? (And that, secondarily, their efforts at Seaview have been woefully inadequate.)
So far as any of us here know, they left the ground unsupported and unimproved at the first 2 maintenance stops, leading to the first 2 sinkholes. How can spokespersons for EGRT stand in front of the public and say all necessary precautions are taken and that soil conditions cannot be foreseen? The ground conditions, expected behaviour, and preventative measures are each laid out in exquisite detail in the GBR.
Going to the very next page of the GBR, how can we now have confidence that EGRT has followed requirements that " ...care must be taken to avoid ground loss from over excavation..." to avoid air pockets outside the tunnel shell that might migrate to surface next week, next month, or next decade?
Gosh, I wish I had been able to attend the meeting in Coquitlam last night to ask these things directly.