Amanda Cutinha

The appellants appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying multiple claim items under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding their new condominium unit.

The Tribunal reviewed 25 disputed claim items relating to workmanship, materials, and fitness for habitation.

The Tribunal found that only two items—a shower wall where tiles were not flush (claim item 34) and an unlevel dishwasher installation (claim item 41)—constituted breaches of warranty.

The remaining claims were dismissed for failing to meet the burden of proof, falling outside the statutory warranty, or not constituting defects under the Construction Performance Guidelines.

The appellants were awarded $2,663.31 from the guarantee fund.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act for alleged defects in their new condominium unit.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the window screens were common elements that could only be appealed by the condominium corporation, the stacked washer and dryer provided by the builder complied with the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and the allegedly missing countertop was not included in the original layout specifications.

The appellants were not entitled to compensation from the guarantee fund.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her compensation under a new home financial loss warranty.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal made an error of fact by failing to consider elevation drawings in the blueprints that showed her expectation of a grade-level main entrance.

The adjudicator found that the previous decision relied only on sectional drawings for backfill height and ignored the elevation drawings, constituting an error of fact that would likely have changed the outcome.

The reconsideration request was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his claim for compensation for financial loss under s. 14(2) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant sought a refund of $296,700 paid to the builder after terminating the construction contract.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant removed the builder's ability to substantially perform the contract by terminating it for his own reasons.

Consequently, the appellant failed to establish that the builder failed to substantially perform the contract or that he had a viable cause of action against the builder.

The Tribunal directed Tarion to deny the claim.

The Appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claim for financial loss under s. 14(2) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Appellant argued the Builder failed to substantially perform the contract because the home's foundation was built higher than she desired, making it inaccessible due to her mobility challenges.

The Tribunal found that while the Builder failed to substantially perform the contract, the foundation was built within the specifications of the blueprints and building permit.

Because the Appellant rejected the Builder's proposed accessibility solutions and terminated the contract, she did not have a cause of action against the Builder.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claim for compensation for a deposit paid to a home builder.

The appellant argued she had exercised her statutory right to rescind the agreement of purchase and sale (APS) and that the builder committed a fundamental breach by failing to set a delayed closing date and selling the home to another buyer.

The Tribunal found that the builder's unavoidable delay notices were invalid, meaning the original critical dates applied, and the appellant's termination notice was provided after the termination period had expired.

Furthermore, applying the Spirent factors, the Tribunal held that the builder's failure to set a delayed closing date did not constitute a fundamental breach, as it did not deprive the appellant of substantially the whole benefit of the APS.

The appeal was dismissed.