Gordon Cooke

The appellant homeowner appealed a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision denying his claim for compensation relating to alleged defects in his new home, specifically cold areas in the kitchen and mudroom.

The builder had previously undertaken repairs based on expert recommendations.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide expert evidence to support his claim that the repairs were insufficient.

Relying on the respondent's expert evidence that the air leakage issues had been resolved and met Ontario Building Code requirements, the Tribunal concluded there was no warrantable defect and directed Tarion not to pay the claim.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her warranty claim for a defective HVAC system in her new home.

The system failed to adequately heat the lower floors and cool the upper floors, and the air handler frequently locked out.

Tarion argued the equipment was excluded from warranty because it was leased from a third party.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that leased equipment supplied by the vendor is not excluded under section 13(2)(a) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, as it was not supplied by the owner.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's expert regarding the extent of the defects and the necessary remediation.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered Tarion to pay the applicant $40,000 in compensation to repair the HVAC system and building envelope to comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims against the builder of their new home.

The claims alleged defects in outside trim, window sill slopes, window seals causing condensation and air infiltration, and floor joist inadequacies.

The Tribunal found that the builder complied with the Ontario Building Code and industry standards, and that the alleged defects were either design choices, normal occurrences like condensation due to high indoor humidity, or acceptable variations in construction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed Tarion's decision.

The builder and Tarion's requests for costs against the applicants were also dismissed, as the Tribunal found the applicants' conduct was not frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.