Danielle Peck

The appellant condominium corporation appealed Tarion's denial of its emergency warranty claims for water leaks in the common elements.

The central issue was whether the plumbing contractor hired by the condominium to perform emergency repairs was authorized by the builder.

The Tribunal found that the contractor was not on the builder's trades list and was hired directly by the condominium for maintenance work.

Because the condominium failed to follow Tarion's emergency warranty claim process, which requires notifying the builder and allowing them 24 hours to resolve the emergency, the condominium disentitled itself to warranty coverage.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying its claim for major structural defect (MSD) warranty coverage for its underground parking garage.

The builder argued the claim was barred by previous settlement agreements.

The Tribunal found the previous agreements only applied to first and second-year warranty claims and did not release future MSD claims.

On the merits, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's structural engineers and found that the builder's failure to install continuous expansion joints throughout the structure and the use of defective concrete resulting in delamination constituted a major structural defect under the function test.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay the appellant $1,565,313.43 for the cost of repairs to the garage.

The appellant sought reconsideration of a decision that awarded her $11,499.07 in damages for breach of warranty, arguing she was entitled to $67,969.50.

She alleged the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by disregarding her evidence and erred in law by failing to apply the Consumer Protection Act and Sale of Goods Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and noting that the other statutes were outside its jurisdiction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants brought a motion to set aside a case conference order requiring them to provide access to their property for a roof inspection by the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellants raised no new information that was not known to them when they consented to the order at the case conference.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that its rules do not provide for the reconsideration of interim orders.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled 10-day hearing regarding a major structural defect warranty claim and to instead hold a one-day motion to dismiss the appeal based on a prior settlement agreement.

The appellant opposed the motion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an adjournment would prejudice the appellant and that Tarion had failed to raise the settlement issue in a timely manner.

The Tribunal ordered that the settlement issue be determined as a preliminary matter at the commencement of the scheduled hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding 27 claims for compensation for construction defects in her new home.

Tarion accepted 22 items as warranted and offered $11,499.07 for repairs, but denied the remaining five items.

The appellant sought $122,592.92, arguing the hardwood floors and staircase required full replacement rather than repair, and claimed punitive damages and other costs.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove the five denied items breached the warranty.

For the 22 warranted items, the Tribunal accepted Tarion's repair estimate, noting the appellant provided insufficient evidence to justify full replacement and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award punitive damages or indirect costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay $11,499.07 plus HST.

The respondent, Tarion Warranty Corporation, brought a motion to add the builder, John Boddy Developments Ltd., as a party to the appellants' warranty appeal regarding roof shingle deficiencies.

The appellants opposed the motion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the builder had an interest in the proceeding, it did not rise to the level of a significant interest because its substantive rights, such as defending against indemnification claims, would not be impeded by the Tribunal's decision.

The motion to add the builder as a party was denied.

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.

The appellant appealed Tarion's decision denying her warranty claim for alleged major structural defects in her home, specifically vertical foundation cracks.

Tarion argued the claim was settled by a prior release and that the cracks did not constitute a major structural defect.

The Tribunal found the release did not cover the specific claims in this appeal.

However, after weighing competing expert engineering evidence, the Tribunal concluded the appellant failed to prove the cracks materially and adversely affected the home's structural integrity or its use as a residential dwelling.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their claim for compensation for construction deficiencies in their new custom home.

Tarion brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the appellants had previously settled a civil lawsuit against the builder and signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal found that the comprehensive release, which discharged the builder from all claims and warranties relating to the home's construction, eliminated the appellants' cause of action against the builder.

As a cause of action against the builder is a statutory prerequisite for compensation from the guarantee fund under section 14(3) of the Ontario New Homes Warranties Plan Act, the Tribunal granted the motion and directed Tarion to deny the claims.

The appellant appealed Tarion's decision to disallow her claim for a deposit refund out of the guarantee fund under s. 14(1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant had previously litigated the return of her deposit against the vendor in the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal, both of which found that she, not the vendor, had breached the agreement of purchase and sale.

The Tribunal held that it was bound by the courts' findings and that the appellant could not relitigate the issue.

The appeal was dismissed.

At a case conference regarding an appeal from Tarion Warranty Corporation's proposal to refuse to register the appellant as a builder and vendor, the parties were unable to settle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a procedural order setting the issues in dispute, hearing dates, and deadlines for witness lists and document exchange.

The appellant homeowner appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his first-year warranty claims for alleged construction defects, including squeaking floors, wide tile grout, defective kitchen cabinetry, and delayed hot water delivery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove any of the items were defects in workmanship or materials.

The squeaking floors were caused by normal wood shrinkage, the grout width was acceptable for the chosen tiles, the cabinetry met specifications, and the hot water delay was normal given the plumbing layout.

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

The appellant homeowner appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for several alleged defects in his new home, including water puddling, grading issues, and interior defects.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the items either fell outside the scope of the second-year warranty or were deemed withdrawn because the appellant failed to request a conciliation inspection within the strict statutory timelines prescribed by Regulation 892.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's decision denying their claims for warranty coverage under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act for their new home.

The claims included a basement leak, a creaking shower base, uneven heating and cooling, an uncentered patio door, and main floor vibration.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the basement leak had been resolved, the shower base and floor vibration were not abnormal or deficient, the temperature measurements were inaccurate, and the patio door placement was agreed to in the purchase agreement.

The appellants failed to prove any of the items were warrantable deficiencies under the Act.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed Tarion's decision regarding a first-year common element warranty claim for defective composite siding (item 4.2.2.1).

The appellant sought over $1.5 million for a complete replacement of the cladding system, arguing the defects caused widespread consequential damage.

Tarion argued the warranty only covered specific sealant repairs costing $84,830.16.

The Tribunal found that only the specific defect identified in the performance audit was covered by the first-year warranty.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of Tarion's engineer and held that the statutory warranty does not cover secondary or consequential damages.

Tarion was ordered to pay $84,830.16.

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 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.