Brent Joseph Arnold

The Applicant condominium corporation appealed Tarion's decision to disallow a claim for water penetration in the building's common elements.

Tarion argued the claim was reported outside the two-year warranty period and was barred by a release signed by the Applicant and the builder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that notice of the water penetration was provided within the warranty period through unit owner forms and the performance audit.

The Tribunal also held that the release was unenforceable due to ambiguity and did not cover the water penetration claim.

Finding that the building envelope was defective and allowed water ingress, the Tribunal ordered Tarion to ensure specific remedial work is completed.

Following the dismissal of the employees' appeal regarding related employers under the Employment Standards Act, the successful respondents sought costs.

The appellants and the Director of Employment Standards argued against a costs award, citing financial hardship and the public interest nature of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to excuse the appellants on financial grounds and noted the Director could not use its statutory role to shield itself from costs after fully participating as an advocate.

However, because the appeal raised the interpretation of s. 4 of the Employment Standards Act for the first time in the court—a matter of broad public interest—the court ordered no costs.

The appellants, former employees of a bankrupt company, sought severance and termination pay from related companies under s. 4 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the companies were related, the relationship did not have the intent or effect of defeating the purpose of the Act, as the related companies had actually propped up the bankrupt company.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision as reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the standard of review is reasonableness and the Board's decision fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The appellant general contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor damages for unpaid invoices.

The trial judge had dismissed the appellant's claims for set-off related to water damage caused by the respondent and a disputed administrative mark-up fee.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by misapprehending uncontradicted evidence that established the respondent's negligence caused the water damage, the quantum of the resulting back-charge, and the respondent's failure to perform the services required to earn the mark-up fee.

The trial judgment was set aside and the action dismissed.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that the respondent bank, as the holder of the appellants' guarantee, was not a 'secured creditor' under section 2 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge, finding that the respondent was not required to give the appellants notice under section 21(1) of the Act before commencing an action on the guarantee.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.