Gena Argitis

The applicant alleged discrimination based on marital status and association with a person of a certain race/place of origin in relation to obtaining mortgage financing for a new home purchase.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims against the home builder, the warranty corporation, and the mortgage broker, as well as the claim regarding association with a lawyer of East Indian origin.

However, the Tribunal allowed the marital status discrimination claim against the mortgage lender to proceed, finding it had a reasonable prospect of success.

The homeowners brought a motion seeking clarification and enforcement of a previous Tribunal decision, citing significant delays and concerns about the quality of subcontractors hired by Tarion Warranty Corporation to perform remediation work.

The Tribunal shared the homeowners' concerns but dismissed the motion for enforcement, noting that administrative tribunals lack the authority to enforce their own orders, which must be done through the Superior Court of Justice under section 19 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal did, however, correct a typographical error in its previous order pursuant to its Rules of Practice.

The homeowners appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying multiple claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal found that the home's weeping tile system was compromised by improper installation, causing basement moisture, and ordered Tarion to replace the entire system, remediate the damp proofing, and address potential mould.

The Tribunal also ordered Tarion to repair a dented eavestrough.

The homeowners' remaining claims regarding staircase finish, floor noises, HVAC issues, floor drains, brick cracks, siding gaps, and a dented support beam were dismissed for lack of evidence or failure to meet the threshold for a breach of warranty.

The applicant sought judicial review of an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding its application for registration as a vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the pre-hearing order did not compel the Registrar to register the applicant, but only to consider the application.

The Court also held that judicial review was inappropriate because the applicant had an adequate and preferable alternative remedy through a statutory appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which provides a hearing de novo.

The Appellant brought a motion to compel the Respondent to abide by a pre-hearing consent order that allowed the Appellant to register as a vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion to vary or read down the order, arguing that new information from the Elliot Lake Inquiry report regarding the Appellant's principal raised serious concerns about honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal found that the new information constituted changed circumstances that provided reasonable grounds to question the correctness of the consent order.

The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's motion and amended the pre-hearing order to delete the consent provision and broaden the scope of the upcoming hearing.

The appellant appealed Tarion's decision to deny a warranty claim on the basis that the request for a conciliation inspection was not made within the statutory time limit.

The appellant argued that Tarion failed to respond to earlier correspondence and did not explicitly state that the time limits were statutory.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the homeowner information package clearly set out the deadlines and consequences of missing them, and there were no grounds to extend the time limits under the regulations.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for $7,500 in damages for an alleged delayed closing of their new home.

The appellants argued that although they received title and appliances on the firm closing date, the range hood was not installed until later, forcing them to stay with relatives.

The tribunal found that the vendor provided proper 90-day written notice of the tentative and firm closing dates, and the transaction closed on the firm closing date.

An occupancy permit was also issued prior to closing.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of warranty.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for bowing brick cladding and defective mortar on a new home.

The Tribunal found that the bowing of the brick walls was not readily visible and did not constitute a defect in workmanship.

Regarding the mortar, the Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the defect was localized to the bottom five feet of the wall due to winter construction freezing, rejecting the appellant's claim that all mortar required replacement.

However, the Tribunal found that the repair work caused damage to some bricks and resulted in mismatched mortar colours, ordering Tarion to tint the affected areas.

The appellant appealed Tarion's decision to deny a warranty claim for a crack in the basement wall that led to water penetration.

Because the home was over seven years old, only the warranty for major structural defects remained.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the crack did not result in the failure of the load-bearing portion of the building, nor did it materially and adversely affect the use of the building for its intended purpose as a home.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for several alleged defects in a new home, including issues with staircase stain, soundproofing, floor chips, a bowed wall, and carpet texture.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the items constituted defects in materials or workmanship.

The Tribunal noted that the standard of repair is not perfection and that the appellant provided no independent evidence to support the claims.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims for various alleged construction defects in their new home, including a fireplace fan, wall reinforcement, bathroom wiring, shower stall design, and a garage door.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding no breach of the Ontario Building Code or defect in workmanship or materials.

However, the Tribunal ordered Tarion to effect repairs to the garage door to bring it into compliance with the warranty.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claim for the cost of installing a gas fireplace.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant sold her home and entered into a collateral agreement with the new owner to maintain her claim against Tarion.

Tarion brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the statutory warranty runs with the home and the applicant lost standing upon the sale.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the collateral agreement was a nullity as it offended s. 13(6) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, which prevents contracting out of the statutory warranties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for their new home.

The claims related to honeycombing in the concrete foundation and a hairline crack in a foundation repair.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the honeycombing had been repaired in a workmanlike manner and was merely a cosmetic issue.

The Tribunal also found that the hairline crack was a result of normal shrinkage and did not exceed the allowable guidelines.

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

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a claim for delayed closing compensation.

The builder had sent notice of the delay by registered mail, which was delayed due to a postal strike, and subsequently sent an email notice.

The applicant argued the email was not a permitted form of communication under the addendum and was not received.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided his email address to the builder, regularly communicated via email, and that the email notice satisfied the requirement to re-send notice by another means.

The appeal was dismissed and the claim denied.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding a plumbing issue where soap suds bubbled up in one side of their double kitchen sink.

The vendor, Arista Homes, was added as a party.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide evidence that the phenomenon was a defect in work or materials or a breach of the Ontario Building Code, as evidence indicated it was a normal result of double sink drainage physics.

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

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for 18 items related to the construction of their new home.

The items included foundation parging, drywall defects, and issues with the ensuite bathroom.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the claims were submitted after the expiration of the one-year warranty period prescribed by the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that none of the defects fell within the scope of the two-year extended warranty under Regulation 892.

The Tribunal concluded it had no discretion to extend the statutory one-year claim period and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant home builder appealed a trial judgment dismissing its counterclaim against a developer and its negligence claim against Tarion Warranty Corporation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the developer, finding the trial judge failed to make necessary findings of fact and misapprehended a prior court order, necessitating a new trial.

However, the appeal against Tarion was dismissed, as the appellant's failure to file required financial statements for registration renewal was wilful, and Tarion's refusal to accept the late application was justified under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Tarion Warranty Corporation appealed a Tribunal decision regarding the registration of a builder, Riva's Emporium Ltd. The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion that Tarion unreasonably extended its requirements for financial information was unreasonable.

The Court also held that the Tribunal failed to recognize the seriousness of the builder's past breaches, resulting in the imposition of unreasonable, redundant, and ultra vires conditions for registration.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a full hearing.

The plaintiff, Tarion Warranty Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision that denied its motion to strike the defendants' pleadings under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court found that Tarion had chosen to enter into a contractual relationship with the guarantors, exposing itself to contractual remedies.

Applying the high threshold for striking pleadings, the court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's reluctance to strike the claim at this stage.

The motion for leave to appeal was denied.