"Our role is to assure that their plans conform to the building code and if there are changes on the exterior," Mayor Karin Marks told the Examiner.

"Everything is ready to go," she added. "The (building) permit is ready for them to pick up, so that's been done. The rest of it is really a legal issue between the residents and the insurance company … It's really now just a matter of who's going to be paying for it, which is not something the City has any say in."

Carol Pass, the owner of a unit at 4500 de Maisonneuve, claims that AXA, an insurance company whose policy was supposed to provide complete coverage, decided to pay only part of the total cost for restoration after invoking exclusionary clauses.

A total of 11 condo unit holders are claiming up to $500,000 — that being the difference between the amount the insurer is willing to pay and the actual restoration cost.

AXA has offered to indemnify up to the level of code standards that were in force when the building was erected in the late 1950s. But the condo owners are being saddled with the cost of meeting current code standards.

"My understanding is that the building was built at a certain period in time under the code as it was then," said Marks. "Some of what happens is that if a building is damaged more than certain amount and is rebuilt, it has to be rebuilt according to the code as it stands now, not according to the code as it was when it was first built.

"My understanding is that's where the problem lies. It's that they are insured for replacement value, not replacement to a higher standard, which is the standard (of) the City. Or they're saying that it's not to a higher standard, which is the standard that the City now requires.

"I think where the problem lies is that they say the tenants are saying, 'well, replacement has to be to the standard that's in force, because you have to meet the current bylaws,'" added Marks. "So they're saying the insurance company should pay for it because that is replacement value. You're replacing what they had before, but according to what the City requires now.

"The insurance company, I understand, is saying no, 'replacement is replacement of exactly what was there and what we're now being asked to do is a higher quality' and therefore they're not agreeing to pay for it … But I believe that what happened is the bylaws when the building was built are different from the bylaws today."