Danielle M. Peck

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for a granite countertop in a newly purchased condominium.

The applicant had paid a premium for a specific granite slab and obtained a written endorsement from the supplier's salesperson that the finished product would not contain a visible vein.

The installed countertop contained a vein.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the specific endorsement overrode the supplier's general disclaimer regarding natural stone variations.

The Tribunal concluded that the countertop was not free from defects, constituting a breach of warranty, and ordered Tarion to replace the countertop without any veins.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a builder and vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Registrar refused registration on the basis that the applicant lacked technical competency, having failed the technical competency test three times with scores well below the required average.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant lacked the necessary familiarity with the Ontario Building Code to properly supervise projects and perform warranties.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing their claims for various alleged construction defects in their new home, primarily asserting that the home's elevation was too low.

The Tribunal found that while there were some minor defects, the applicants failed to provide corroborating evidence or prove damages.

Furthermore, the applicants unreasonably refused to allow the builder access to the property to perform necessary repairs.

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

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a claim for cracks in the basement and garage floors of a new home.

The applicant argued the cracks were unacceptable, while Tarion and the builder contended the cracks were minor and resulted from normal shrinkage.

The Tribunal found that the cracks were well within the acceptable limits set by the Construction Performance Guidelines and constituted normal shrinkage, which is excluded from the statutory warranty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, a medical assessment firm and two of its doctors, sued the respondents for defamation over a television broadcast that criticized their handling of an insurance claim.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the broadcast was protected by the defence of fair comment.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge unduly narrowed the defamatory meaning of the broadcast and erred in applying the fair comment defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the broadcast's meaning was properly contextualized and that the statements were fair comment based on substantially true facts.