Yeah, basically. As an Engineer, the city relies on his professional judgement that the building is safe to occupy. His design to fix the structural issues assumed that the only issues were the ones identified by the third party report, and he has agreed that he should have known that he needed to do his own assessment before he could advise the city that the building is safe. Its extra ironic considering Stu Young's statement when the building re-opened, but its basically the point of the professional reliance model. The City would have also expected him to be signing off that the building is safe,
“It will probably be the safest building in Langford since they have gone through it with a fine-toothed comb I’m sure.”

There's no new info on the actual issues, just the detail that the original complaint identified enough structural issues to decide that the building was unsafe, but specifically stated that there may be others. I do find it interesting that Sorensen Trilogy was hired to do the remediation after the initial oversight being entirely their fault because they weren't qualified to do the work in the first place... Could be that no other company wants to take on this headache.

^ I also found it amazing that ST was hired to do the remediation. One would think that either the City or property owner would have questioned that.

Has there been anything new on this front, since the new info came to light?

Not that I've heard, but there's a panel coming apart near the top after the recent windstorm that I keep forgetting to check if its been patched.

https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/comments/1glhr05/danbrook_one_windstorm_aftermath_brokenfallen/

Also a bunch of comments in that reddit thread from people that supposedly have some inside information.