The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision awarding $84,830 for a warranty claim regarding common elements, rather than the $1.5 million sought.
The LAT found that only one deficiency (gaps in caulking) was covered by the first-year warranty and that the appellant's extensive repair work went beyond what was required to fix that deficiency.
On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the LAT's decision, finding no error of law in the LAT's conclusion that under s. 44 of the Condominium Act, a performance audit must identify the deficiency, not merely the symptom (such as water penetration).
The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the LAT's factual findings regarding the scope of consequential damages.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
