Ayesha Mehreen

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claims for major structural defects relating to brick veneer and roof assembly.

The appellant argued that both claims should have been assessed under second-year warranty criteria rather than major structural defect criteria, and that Tarion failed to assess the roof claim entirely.

The Tribunal held that it lacked the authority to reopen the second-year claims process or to order Tarion to assess a major structural defect claim using second-year criteria.

However, the Tribunal found that Tarion had failed to assess the specific roof condensation claim listed in the appellant's form, mistakenly believing it had been addressed under a different item.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to conduct a conciliation and issue an assessment report for the roof claim under the major structural defect warranty.

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 appellant appealed Tarion's decision to deny her Major Structural Defect (MSD) claim because it was filed outside the seven-year warranty period.

The appellant argued that Tarion should have exercised its discretion under s. 5.10 of the Regulation to extend the timeline due to extraordinary circumstances, including inconsistent information from Tarion, her father's palliative care, and her own severe COVID-19 illness.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that Tarion had the discretion to extend the timeline and that the appellant's circumstances warranted such an extension.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to accept the MSD claim and process it in accordance with the Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for water leakage in the unfinished basement of his new home.

The appellant alleged that foundation cracks were improperly repaired from the interior and that an exterior repair was required.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that water testing conducted by both Tarion and a third-party contractor confirmed the interior polyurethane resin injections successfully sealed the cracks with no water penetration.

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to prove a breach of warranty.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding a claim for air leakage in their new home.

While Tarion had already paid $20,641.08 based on a localized repair estimate, the appellants argued the scope of work was insufficient to resolve the defect across the entire rear elevation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the warranty breach extended beyond the localized area to include the entire length of the master bedroom rim joist and the area above the great room window.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to perform or arrange the necessary remedial work for this expanded scope, with liability limited to costs exceeding the amount already paid.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied warranty coverage for alleged defects in a new home, specifically the slope of a porch and a chimney bump-out.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and sought to introduce new video evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision was reasonably grounded in the evidence and that the new video evidence could have been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying compensation for several claim items under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant alleged various construction defects, including shaking and squeaking floors, separated caulking, and spongy shower bases.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet his onus of proving the claim items constituted breaches of warranty, as he relied primarily on his own observations and opinions rather than objective industry standards such as the Construction Performance Guidelines or the Ontario Building Code.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal directed Tarion not to pay any amount from the guarantee fund.

The appellant purchased a new home that the builder failed to enroll with Tarion.

After discovering the home was eligible for coverage, the appellant submitted a year-end claim form outside the one-year warranty period.

Tarion denied the claim as late.

On appeal, the Tribunal found that while Tarion has the discretion to extend the timeline for submitting a year-end claim under s. 5.10 of O. Reg. 892, the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify an extension.

The Tribunal also held that the Limitations Act, 2002 does not apply to supersede the prescribed timelines in the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her payment out of the guarantee fund.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness, made errors of law and fact, and ignored material evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no errors of law or fact, and no new evidence that met the threshold for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his claim for compensation for financial loss under s. 14(2) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant sought a refund of $296,700 paid to the builder after terminating the construction contract.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant removed the builder's ability to substantially perform the contract by terminating it for his own reasons.

Consequently, the appellant failed to establish that the builder failed to substantially perform the contract or that he had a viable cause of action against the builder.

The Tribunal directed Tarion to deny the claim.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for three items in her new home: an allegedly excessive porch slope, an off-level porch railing, and a chimney bump-out installed in error.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the porch slope was not excessive and complied with the Ontario Building Code requirement to shed water.

The off-level railing was a result of the necessary porch slope and not a defect.

Finally, while the chimney bump-out was installed by mistake, it did not contain any defects in workmanship or material.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought a refund of a $100,000 deposit paid for a new home, arguing the vendor fundamentally breached the agreement of purchase and sale by obstructing her assignment rights, providing substandard finishes, and issuing a notice of anticipatory breach.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vendor did not obstruct the assignment, the alleged defects were material rather than fundamental breaches, and the anticipatory breach notice did not deprive the appellant of the whole benefit of the contract.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was not entitled to payment from the guarantee fund.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding compensation for defective floor tiles and grout in his new home.

Tarion offered a cash settlement of $1,100, while the appellant sought $14,500 based on an estimate to redo the entire kitchen floor.

The Tribunal found the appellant's estimate disproportionate to the warrantable defects.

However, noting the builder's previous failed repair attempts and the appellant's desire to have the issue fixed rather than receive cash, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under s. 14(19) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to order Tarion to perform or arrange for the repairs itself, using a contractor other than the builder, in lieu of paying damages.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his claim for compensation regarding alleged defects in his new home's kitchen cabinets and a wooden balcony support post.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove the cabinet stain colour differed from his design centre selection or that the cracks in the wooden post constituted a structural deficiency under the Ontario Building Code.

Although the Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the builder for surreptitiously filling the post cracks prior to the conciliation assessment, this was insufficient to establish a structural defect.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was not entitled to payment from the guarantee fund.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion to add the Builder, Caivan Barrhaven Conservancy Inc., as a party to the homeowner's appeal of a warranty claim denial.

Tarion argued the Builder had a significant economic and reputational interest in the proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Builder's interests did not rise to the level of 'significant' under Rule 3.6 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

The Tribunal emphasized that the warranty scheme is primarily a consumer protection mechanism and that the Builder's substantive rights to defend against future indemnification claims would not be impeded by the Tribunal's decision.

The respondent, Tarion Warranty Corporation, brought a motion to add the builder as a party to the appellant's warranty claim appeal.

The builder argued it had a significant interest due to reputational and financial risks, including potential indemnification claims.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the builder's substantive rights would not be impeded by the decision and that adding the builder would unnecessarily complicate the consumer protection proceeding.

The builder's request for costs was also dismissed as it was not a party and the appellant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 3, 2016, and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied treatment plans submitted in October 2021 and June 2022 on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was time-barred under section 20 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, as the treatment plans were submitted more than 260 weeks (five years) after the accident.

The applicant did not file submissions or evidence.

The adjudicator found that the applicant was over 18 at the time of the accident, had not sustained a catastrophic impairment, and had not purchased optional benefits.

Therefore, the 260-week limit applied, and the application was dismissed as time-barred.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical benefits for chiropractic treatment, and medication expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment for the pre-104 week period, and failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment for the post-104 week period.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, who noted symptom magnification and self-limited effort, over the applicant's experts who relied on incorrect employment information.

The claims for chiropractic treatment and medication were also dismissed for lack of supporting medical evidence.