Brent Joseph Arnold

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying compensation for numerous alleged construction defects and unauthorized substitutions in their new home.

The appellants claimed the builder failed to comply with the agreement of purchase and sale, particularly regarding the installation of marble tile flooring with a reduced scratch coat.

The Tribunal found that while the flooring installation was an unauthorized substitution, the appellants failed to prove any resulting damages, as expert evidence established the as-built floor was structurally sound and performing well.

The Tribunal dismissed all but one of the appellants' claims, awarding $3,500 for a window that was installed in the wrong location contrary to the contract.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued an order regarding the use of recordings and transcripts of an ongoing proceeding.

The Tribunal replaced a temporary order and directed that while parties would not be restricted from accessing the recordings, they could only use them to assist in preparing their case.

The parties were expressly prohibited from publishing, broadcasting, reproducing, or disseminating the recordings or transcripts to anyone not a party to the proceeding.

The Tribunal also ordered the immediate removal of any previously uploaded or published recordings.

During an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim, the appellants requested costs for a vacated hearing date after the respondent had no witnesses available.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent's inability to schedule an expert witness was largely due to the appellants unreasonably prolonging a previous cross-examination.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith under Rule 14.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

During an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim, the self-represented appellants alleged for a third time that the presiding adjudicator was biased against them because she sustained the respondent's evidentiary objections.

The adjudicator invited submissions on whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no reasonable apprehension of bias, noting that adverse rulings do not constitute bias and the appellants presented no new facts.

The Tribunal awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondent, finding the appellants' repetitive bias allegations and disruptive behaviour to be unreasonable and frivolous, resulting in the loss of a full hearing day.

The appellants brought a motion seeking various procedural and substantive relief, including an investigation into missing hearing recordings, authorization to record the hearing themselves, a review of a previous order, and determinations regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and alleged bullying.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the issues of bias and bullying had already been addressed in a previous order, and that the appellants' recourse for challenging that order was to appeal.

The Tribunal also denied the request for the appellants to record the proceedings, noting that only one official record should exist.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim in part.

During the hearing, the appellants unexpectedly concluded their evidence early.

As the respondent's witnesses were not immediately available to proceed the following day, the Tribunal vacated the next scheduled hearing date and adjourned the matter for continuation.

During an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim, the self-represented appellants alleged that they were being bullied by the opposing counsel and the Presiding Member.

The Presiding Member invited submissions on whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Finding no objective support for the allegations and noting that the appellants did not wish to start the hearing anew, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and continued the hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their new home warranty claim.

At the outset of the hearing, the respondent and the added party brought motions to quash summonses issued for two witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the motions and quashed the summonses on the basis of undertakings from counsel that both witnesses would be produced to testify and be cross-examined at the hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding a new home warranty claim.

Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal heard six preliminary motions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' motions seeking a forced cash settlement, certificates of impartiality for witnesses, and the exclusion of certain expert reports.

The Tribunal partially granted the appellants' motion for document disclosure, ordering the added party to produce specific invoices and correspondence.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the respondent's motion to quash a summons issued to its President and C.E.O., finding he had no relevant evidence to provide.

The respondent brought a motion to adjourn the commencement of the hearing to September 5, 2014.

The added party consented, but the appellants opposed the motion.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and ordered the respondent to pay the appellants $500.00 in costs.

The Tribunal also ordered that witnesses subject to pending motions to quash their summonses need not attend the hearing until those motions are resolved.

The estate of a former CEO brought an oppression action under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act seeking recovery of a $750,000 loan advanced to finance a corporate break fee.

The loan was structured through a related entity and contained provisions stating that proceeds from certain Irish transactions could be used, at the lender’s discretion, to repay the loan.

After the corporation received nearly $1 million from three of the four transactions, the directors and CFO used the funds for payroll, operating expenses, tax arrears, and to repay their own loans rather than repaying the lender.

The court held the lender had a reasonable expectation that proceeds from the Irish deals would be applied to the loan principal.

While some expenditures were made in good faith to keep the company operating, the repayment of insiders and a later lender constituted conduct that unfairly disregarded the lender’s interests.

Personal monetary orders were made against certain directors and the CFO.

The applicants sought judicial review of regulations authorizing a two-year spring bear hunt pilot program in northern Ontario, arguing the regulations were ultra vires and the Minister's decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister complied with the Environmental Bill of Rights process, an environmental assessment was not required due to an existing exemption, and the regulations did not conflict with the Criminal Code's animal cruelty provisions.

The court also held that the Minister's decision to implement the pilot project was protected by privative clauses and not subject to judicial review.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding that a termination clause in an Independent Dealer Agreement was void as against the respondent trustee in bankruptcy.

The clause relieved the appellants of their obligation to pay unpaid commissions upon termination of the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, extending the principle from CIBC v. Bramalea to hold that the clause was unenforceable because it provided a windfall to one creditor upon insolvency, violating the public policy of equitable and fair distribution among unsecured creditors.

The appellants brought a motion to stay their own appeal pending the trial judge's determination of several outstanding issues following a complex, multi-party trial involving allegations of fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy.

The respondents opposed the stay, arguing the issues relating to them were discrete and finally disposed of.

The Court of Appeal held that the 'interests of justice' test, rather than the RJR-Macdonald test, applies when a party seeks to stay an appeal pending another body's decision.

Balancing the need for expeditious justice against the benefits of a single appeal, the court granted a 120-day stay of the appeal, on the condition that the appellants immediately order the necessary transcripts.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for a major structural defect warranty regarding their new home.

The applicants raised concerns about foundation cracks, soil settlement, the septic system, and other issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants failed to provide evidence that the defects rendered the home uninhabitable or unsafe, and thus did not meet the statutory definition of a major structural defect.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the order under appeal was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the lower court's order did not terminate the responding party's rights to seek injunctive relief or to have a notice of sale declared invalid.

As the order was interlocutory, the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce a California judgment of approximately (US)$17 million against the defendant Jay Chiang and sought a declaration that the debt survives his bankruptcy discharge under s. 178(1)(d) of the BIA.

The plaintiffs also brought a second action alleging that Jay Chiang and numerous family members engaged in fraudulent conveyances and a conspiracy to hide assets and frustrate collection efforts.

The court enforced the California judgment in the amount of (US)$9,678,832 but declined to declare that the debt survives bankruptcy, finding no fiduciary duty was owed to the plaintiffs.

The court found Jay Chiang liable for fraudulent conveyances and conspiracy, but dismissed the claims against most of the other family members, finding they were unwitting conduits used by Jay Chiang.

The appellant warranty corporation appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering it to undertake remedial work on a new home's radiant floor heating system.

The Tribunal found the system was a major structural defect and ordered repairs estimated at $245,000.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the $100,000 statutory cap on compensation for major structural defects under Regulation 892.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a rehearing on the issue of remedy alone.

The applicants appealed Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision to deny their claims regarding various construction defects in their new home, including grading, brickwork, ceramic tiles, roofing, and foundation cracks.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants failed to prove their case on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of Tarion's representative and expert, who had tested their conclusions, over the applicants' expert, whose theories were untested.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to provide evidence of the costs of the repairs they sought.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for four items in their new home: sink holes in the lawn, a steep swale slope, thin driveway asphalt, and a sinking cornerstone.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

The Tribunal found that the extensive sink holes in the lawn were caused by inadequate topsoil compaction and were therefore warranted.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the swale slope (a municipal requirement), the driveway asphalt (no evidence of unworkmanlike construction under the guidelines), and the sinking cornerstone (expressly excluded from warranty coverage).