Arlene Campbell

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their Year-End Form warranty claims regarding sod levelling, roof shingles, and interior dapping.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the builder breached the statutory warranty under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal noted the sod issues were aesthetic, the roof showed no significant defects, and the dapping gaps were likely caused by low humidity in the home.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was ordered to deny the claims.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed a severe neurocognitive disorder, rendering her incapable of caring for herself.

She sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's dementia pre-dated the accident and was not caused by it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the accident materially contributed to the onset and rapid acceleration of the applicant's neurocognitive disorder.

The Tribunal held that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental and behavioural impairment) and awarded income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits up to $6,000 per month, and specific medical treatment plans, along with interest.

Claims for an award under section 10 and costs were dismissed.

The court determined that the applicants were not entitled to extend their subleasehold interest in commercial premises for a further five years because they had committed at least three defaults, constituting "habitual default" under the sublease.

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the conditions for extension, including defaults related to unauthorized physiotherapy services, late rent payments, fire code deficiencies, and nonpayment of rent during COVID-19 closures.

The court also held that the equitable remedy of relief from forfeiture did not apply, as the applicants' defaults were not due to circumstances beyond their control.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The court considered whether the assessment of costs following settlement should be conducted by an assessment officer or by a judge.

The plaintiffs sought to have the court fix costs, while the defendants argued for assessment by an assessment officer under Rule 57.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that, as the matter settled before trial and the court had only a cursory knowledge of the facts, the assessment should be conducted by an assessment officer as contemplated by the Rules.

The court encouraged the parties to attempt to resolve costs without assessment if possible.

The moving party creditor brought a motion to annul the consumer debtor's consumer proposal.

The creditor had failed to file a proof of claim within the statutory time periods, resulting in the proposal being deemed accepted and approved.

The creditor also commenced actions against the debtor and the administrator without obtaining leave of the court, breaching the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

However, the debtor was ineligible to file a consumer proposal because her aggregate debts, including the creditor's judgment, exceeded the $250,000 statutory limit.

Balancing the factors, including the debtor's ineligibility and the massive disparity between the proven claims and the creditor's claim, the court exercised its discretion to annul the consumer proposal, despite the creditor's misconduct.