James Buren

This case involved a construction dispute where the plaintiff, Save On Contracting, claimed construction liens and damages against the defendant property owners.

The defendants counterclaimed for costs to complete and correct deficiencies, alleging Save On repudiated the contract.

The court analyzed the contract's interpretation regarding Tarion warranty security, whether one of the defendants was a "builder" under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, and whether Save On fundamentally breached the contract.

The court found that Save On repudiated the contract by making groundless payment demands and abandoning the site.

Consequently, Save On's claims were dismissed, and the defendants were awarded damages for the costs of completing the work and correcting deficiencies.

The appellants appealed a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision denying warranty coverage for water penetration and mould in their basement, and for exterior cladding defects on their roof.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the appellants voided the warranty for the basement issues by unilaterally removing and replacing drywall and excavating a trench before Tarion could inspect the alleged defects.

Regarding the roof, the Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove that water had penetrated the building envelope or that the roof's design constituted a warrantable defect in workmanship or materials.

The Tribunal also gave very little weight to the appellants' roofing expert due to bias and lack of independence.

The appellants' request for costs and engineering expenses was denied.