Danielle M. Peck

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding warranty coverage for deficiencies in their residential unit.

Tarion brought a motion to add the builder, Allure, as a party to the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding due to its potential financial liability, its history with the issues, and its ability to provide factual evidence.

In an appeal regarding common element deficiencies in a condominium, the respondent warranty corporation brought a motion to add the builder as a party.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding because it provided warranty coverage, had been active in making repairs, and would be responsible for any payment ordered, which could amount to approximately $100,000.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal sought leave to intervene in an appeal launched by Birani Homes Limited against a decision directing Tarion Warranty Corporation to pay $300,000 for home foundation and wall replacement.

Birani opposed the intervention, citing concerns about duplication of submissions, lack of unique expertise, and potential prejudice, particularly regarding a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Tarion consented to the intervention.

The court granted the Tribunal intervenor status, limiting its participation to issues concerning the standard of review, the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act (ONHWPA) regarding year-end and major structural defect claims, and its Rules of Practice and Procedure on adding parties and disclosure.

Intervention on the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias was denied to prevent the Tribunal from appearing to defend its own decision.

The Appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing a first-year warranty claim for foundation leaks.

The Appellant argued that the builder failed to install dampproofing and drainage layers to ground level, contrary to the Ontario Building Code.

Tarion and the builder argued the claim was invalid because it was originally characterized as a lack of 'waterproofing' and that the installation met the functional intent of the Code.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the defect was sufficiently identified within the warranty period and that terminating the materials below ground level violated the Code and caused leaks.

Tarion was ordered to ensure the necessary repairs are completed.

The Appellants brought a motion for costs against Tarion Warranty Corporation and the builder, Birani Homes Limited, alleging unprofessional conduct, manipulated test results, and harassment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the allegations under Rule 14 of its Rules of Practice, which requires conduct to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith to attract costs.

The Tribunal found that while Tarion could have handled the matter better and the parties disagreed on expert choices, the conduct complained of did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award.

The motion for costs was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for squeaky hardwood floors in their new home.

The appellants argued the floors were defective, while the builder and Tarion maintained the subfloor met the Ontario Building Code and the noise was due to humidity issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the movement and noise in the floors exceeded acceptable imperfections and violated Tarion's Construction Performance Guidelines, constituting a breach of warranty under section 13(1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to repair or replace the affected areas of the floors.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their second-year warranty claims for various alleged defects in their new home, including insufficient attic insulation, basement wall cracks, and sloping front porch steps.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the claims were either first-year warranty items, previously settled, unsupported by evidence of health and safety risks, or specifically excluded by statute, such as the subsidence of land affecting the front steps.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for a squeaky floor in a new home.

The appellant argued the floor was excessively squeaky and provided a home inspector's letter, while Tarion's representative testified the squeaks were typical of wood frame construction and caused by normal shrinkage.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove the squeaking was a warrantable defect rather than normal shrinkage, which is specifically excluded from warranty coverage under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for water penetration, window fogging, and lack of garage truss strapping under the second-year warranty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the water penetration and window fogging issues were first-year warranty items and thus ineligible for the second-year report.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the garage strapping was not required by the Ontario Building Code in this instance and the appellants suffered no damages.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim in full.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying several claims regarding alleged defects in their new home, including countertop swelling, railing discolouration, dryer vibration, missing shingles, and brick quality.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims that there were warrantable defects.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claims in full.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding the interface between tile flooring and an interior wall in their new home.

The appellants argued that a 5-degree misalignment between the tiles and the wall breached the statutory warranty requiring the home to be constructed in a workmanlike manner.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the variation was minor, not initially noticeable, and fell within the range of acceptable variation in new home construction.

The appellants failed to provide evidence establishing that the misalignment breached acceptable industry standards.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying several claims regarding alleged defects in their new home built by the added party.

The claims included issues with the pre-delivery inspection, front entrance steps, kitchen crown moulding, shower unit, hardwood flooring gaps, fireplace vent, and driveway grading.

The Tribunal dismissed all claims except for one relating to kitchen panels, which Tarion conceded.

The Tribunal found that the builder complied with the agreement of purchase and sale, the Ontario Building Code, and industry standards, and that the appellants failed to prove any breach of statutory warranties for the disputed items.

The applicants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their warranty claims for window replacement, carpet defects, and basement insulation in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants failed to report the window and carpet issues within the one-year warranty period and had unilaterally replaced the windows, denying the vendor the right to inspect and repair.

The Tribunal also found that the basement insulation complied with the Ontario Building Code.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding a missing front porch railing and a missing door between the garage and laundry room.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the final grading brought the porch elevation within the Ontario Building Code standard, eliminating the need for a railing.

The Tribunal also accepted evidence that installing the garage door would violate the Building Code due to the grade difference requiring a landing.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding the installation of a Lyons brand whirlpool bathtub instead of a Kohler brand.

The applicants argued that a verbal representation was made promising a Kohler tub.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale did not specify a brand, expressly excluded verbal representations, and permitted the vendor to substitute an item of equal or better quality.

The installed eight-jet tub was deemed of better quality than the six-jet tub listed in the agreement.

The Applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding defects in the interior stairs of their new home.

Tarion accepted the Applicants' expert report recommending complete refinishing of the stairs, leaving the cost of repair as the sole issue.

The Tribunal reviewed various estimates and ordered Tarion to pay $6,915.00, which corresponded to an estimate provided by the Applicants for the agreed scope of work.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for $7,500 in delayed occupancy compensation.

The applicants purchased a new condominium home, but occupancy was delayed due to a fire that required complete reconstruction of the building.

The builder (Added Party) issued notices of an Unavoidable Delay and later set a new firm occupancy date of May 12, 2011, which the applicants had mutually agreed to for their own convenience.

The applicants argued the notice ending the delay was improper.

The Tribunal found that the builder provided proper written notice in accordance with the Addendum to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and therefore the applicants were not entitled to compensation.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for various alleged defects in their new home, including issues with a glass shower, cabinet doors, ceiling unevenness, chipped bricks, and a garage door.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that most of the items were either normal wear and tear, within acceptable construction tolerances, or adequately repaired by the builder.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal only with respect to the garage door frame, ordering Tarion to pay $350 for its repair.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage on the basis that the added party was not a 'builder' under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicant had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home, but also entered into side contracts with the site supervisor for extra work.

The Tribunal found that the added party was a builder because it remained in control of the construction and provided everything necessary to deliver a completed home.

However, the Tribunal also found that the side contracts with the site supervisor constituted work and material supplied by the owner, and any defects in that work were excluded from warranty coverage under s. 13(2)(a) of the Act.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for delayed closing compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The central issue was whether the builder, Forestside Estates Inc., provided proper notice of a delayed closing date.

The builder's initial registered letter was returned due to the applicants moving without providing a written change of address.

The builder subsequently obtained the new address by phone and sent a second notice by regular mail.

The Tribunal found that the deemed delivery provision for the registered letter was rebutted by the builder's actual knowledge of the failed delivery, but the second notice sent by regular mail was successfully delivered and constituted proper notice.

The appeal was dismissed and the claim for compensation was disallowed.