Gregory William Banks

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for numerous alleged construction defects in their new home.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove that the vast majority of the disputed items, including framing, floor slabs, and paint quality, were breaches of warranty or violations of the Ontario Building Code.

While two minor items were found to be breaches, the appellants failed to prove any resulting damages.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the appellants were disentitled to compensation for several otherwise warranted items because they unreasonably denied the builder access to the home during the extended repair period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The trial concerned a counterclaim by Daro Industries Inc. and Robert Danninger against Innocon and Lafarge Canada Inc. for breach of contract (Sale of Goods Act), negligence, and defamation, arising from the delamination of a self-levelling floor screed product, Fina, supplied by Lafarge for a high-rise construction project.

Daro alleged the Fina was defective due to limestone filler causing delayed hydration and expansion.

Lafarge contended the delamination was due to Daro's improper installation, including inadequate primer application and uncontrolled environmental factors.

The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding Daro failed to prove the Fina was defective or that Lafarge was negligent or defamed Daro.

The court concluded the delamination was more likely due to Daro's installation deficiencies and site conditions.

At a case conference, the court addressed ongoing procedural delays and tactical gamesmanship between the parties.

The defendants sought to bring a contempt motion for the plaintiffs' failure to comply with an order to answer undertakings, while the plaintiffs sought a cross-motion for security for costs.

Relying on the culture shift mandated by Hryniak and the powers under Rule 50.13, the court declined to schedule formal motions and instead made summary orders directing the plaintiffs to comply with the prior order, produce physical flooring samples in Toronto for inspection, and file corrected pleadings.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for property damage caused by a ruptured sprinkler system, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until it received its expert's formal report.

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the material facts to base an allegation of negligence against the defendants well before the formal report was delivered, based on preliminary communications with the expert.

The motions were granted and the action was dismissed as it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to extend the time for setting the action down for trial and the subsequent dismissal of the action for delay, the court determined the costs payable to the defendants.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that no costs should be awarded, emphasizing the principle of indemnity and the significant defence costs incurred.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity scale, with the primary private sector defendant receiving the largest share due to its robust defence of its licensed operations.

Following an appeal where the appellants achieved divided success, the court tentatively awarded the appellants $5,000 in costs.

The respondents sought to reverse this tentative decision based on an offer to settle, which proposed dismissing the appeal without costs.

The court found the offer to settle was not relevant to the disposition of costs, as the appellants achieved a better result than the offer.

The court increased the costs awarded to the appellants to $7,500 due to the additional time and effort required to respond to the respondents' submissions.

The plaintiffs purchased a house and later discovered extensive mold.

They sued the vendors and the home inspector, Bestcheck Inspection Services and its principal, Raymond Lecours, alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

The home inspector defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing they conducted the inspection according to the applicable standard of care and that the plaintiffs did not reasonably rely on any alleged misrepresentations.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the claims against the home inspector defendants, finding no breach of the standard of care and no reasonable reliance by the plaintiffs.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their warranty claim for alleged major structural defects in their new home, including foundation cracks, split studs, squeaky floors, and inadequate footings.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that any of the alleged issues constituted a major structural defect.

The evidence showed the home was built in accordance with the Ontario Building Code and the observed cracks were normal concrete curing.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was ordered to deny the warranty claims.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for several alleged defects in his new home, including tile floor issues, siding noise, and second-floor sagging.

The applicant argued that the tile defects were symptomatic of a broader structural failure requiring complete floor replacement.

The Tribunal preferred the expert evidence of the builder's structural engineer and flooring contractor, finding that the subfloor was stable, met Ontario Building Code standards, and that spot repairs were appropriate.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims regarding siding noise and floor sagging, as the applicant failed to prove unworkmanlike installation or that the deflection exceeded allowable limits.

Tarion was ordered to warrant the spot repairs of cracks in the tile and grout as originally assessed.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim regarding a defective heating system in their new home.

The builder recently made repairs to the system, but due to warm weather, the applicants had not been able to evaluate their effectiveness.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal without prejudice due to a lack of post-repair evidence, and ordered Tarion to warrant the current heating system repairs until March 1, 2013.

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 warranty coverage for several items in their new home under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered preliminary motions regarding the admissibility of a supplemental decision letter and the re-litigation of a hardwood flooring claim, admitting the letter but barring the flooring claim.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the foundation crack, stipple ceiling repairs, roof shingles, and site grading were not defective and dismissed those claims.

However, the Tribunal found that the premature deterioration of the front porch concrete finish was a defect and ordered Tarion to warrant the repair, along with other items conceded during the hearing.

The Applicants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their warranty claim for mould remediation in their basement crawlspace.

After Tarion warranted the mould issue, the Applicants refused to allow the builder access to test and remediate, instead hiring their own contractor and demanding Tarion pay the invoice.

The Tribunal found that the Applicants breached the statutory warranty scheme by denying the builder its right to repair, and that the Applicants' chosen contractor did not perform industry-standard mould remediation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants abandoned their application for judicial review of the licensing process under the Public Accountancy Act shortly before the respondents' motion to quash was to be heard.

The respondents sought costs of the application and motion to quash.

The court determined that under the amended Rules of Civil Procedure, there is a presumption that costs should be fixed by the court rather than referred to assessment, unless the case is 'exceptional'.

Finding the case not exceptional, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale, rejecting the respondents' request for substantial indemnity costs as there was no evidence of bad faith or abuse of process.

The respondents were awarded the full amount claimed on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision to strike a jury notice on the grounds of complexity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's discretion given the multiplicity of causes of action, defendants, heads of damages, and interlocking legal and factual issues.