Brian M. Campbell

The applicant builder sought judicial review of Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision finding it unwilling or unable to resolve warranty claims, which allowed Tarion to abridge vendor repair periods.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application without hearing the merits, finding that the issue was moot because the repair periods had long expired and Tarion had already undertaken the repairs.

The court also noted the applicant's unreasonable delay in bringing the application and the availability of an alternative remedy through an existing civil action.

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 warranty corporation appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering it to undertake remedial work on a new home's radiant floor heating system.

The Tribunal found the system was a major structural defect and ordered repairs estimated at $245,000.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the $100,000 statutory cap on compensation for major structural defects under Regulation 892.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a rehearing on the issue of remedy alone.

The appellant appealed a Tribunal decision refusing to renew its registration as a home builder under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred by relying on its past history of non-compliance, asserting that the respondent was estopped from doing so because it had previously renewed the registration annually.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the respondent was not precluded from putting the appellant's entire record before the Tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought to introduce fresh evidence of events that occurred after the tribunal's decision on an appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the appeal must be based on the record before the tribunal and that post-hearing conduct is a matter for the tribunal.

The court found this was not a rare case where post-hearing evidence must be admitted to prevent an obvious and substantial injustice.

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.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the existence of an exclusive contract and the reasonable notice period for termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions that no exclusive contract existed and that 90 days was a reasonable notice period to terminate the contract concerning 22 machines.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the relevant statute and regulation do not create a private law duty of care.

The court also declined to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary costs award.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $5,733.32.