8 total
Motion for home inspection access denied; Tribunal lacks statutory authority to order property access.
Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion requesting an order that its engineer be provided access to inspect the appellants' basement insulation, after the appellants disclosed an expert report.
The appellants opposed the motion.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked the statutory authority under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to order a party to provide access to their home for an inspection or to create a document that does not exist.
Motion to extend document exchange deadline and adjourn hearing granted to accommodate new expert reports.
The appellants brought a motion to extend the document exchange deadline in their appeal of a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision.
The respondent consented to the extension but requested that documents unrelated to new expert reports be exchanged immediately and that the hearing be adjourned for 60 days.
The Tribunal granted the extension for all documents to be exchanged on the same date, finding that the issues were interrelated and piecemeal disclosure was inappropriate.
The Tribunal also granted a 30-day adjournment of the hearing to allow the respondent sufficient time to review the new expert reports.
New home warranty appeal allowed in part; $500 awarded for improperly placed exterior steps.
The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for various defects in their new home, including issues with kitchen countertops, HVAC performance in two rooms, and the placement of exterior concrete steps.
The Tribunal found that the countertops and HVAC systems met the applicable Construction Performance Guidelines and dismissed those claims.
However, the Tribunal found a breach of warranty regarding the exterior concrete steps, which partially obstructed garage access contrary to the architectural drawings.
The appeal was allowed in part, and Tarion was ordered to pay $500 from the guarantee fund to compensate for the repair of the steps.
New home warranty appeal dismissed; homeowners unreasonably denied builder access and failed to prove defects.
The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act for numerous alleged construction defects in their new home.
The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to award damages for pain and suffering.
For three claim items where Tarion agreed defects existed, the Tribunal found the appellants had unreasonably denied the builder access to make repairs, disentitling them to compensation.
For the remaining claim items, the Tribunal found the appellants failed to meet their onus of proving defects in workmanship or materials, often failing to provide objective evidence of industry standards.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal properly assessed damages for new home warranty defects without applying inapplicable water penetration test.
The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding the quantum of damages for warranted defects in the exterior brick cladding of their new home.
The Tribunal had awarded $16,724 to repair the front of the house, rejecting the appellants' claim for over $200,000 to rebrick the entire home.
On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellants argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the test from Ducas and by taking a functional rather than prescriptive approach to the Building Code.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Ducas test inapplicable to the one-year warranty at issue and holding that the Tribunal properly assessed the scope of damages based on the evidence.
Appeal for new home warranty coverage dismissed; alleged defects did not fall below industry standards.
The appellants appealed a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision denying warranty coverage for 18 alleged defects in their new home, including cracks on door latches, debris, imperfect studs, a loose kitchen light, door alignment, and paint issues.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the items fell below industry standards or constituted a breach of the warranty of workmanlike manner under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.
The Tribunal also denied the builder's request for costs, finding the self-represented appellants' conduct did not meet the high threshold for a costs award.
Tribunal ordered $19,239.35 for cosmetic window repairs, rejecting homeowners' claim for full replacement.
The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding the quantum of damages for cosmetic damage to the exterior windows and doors of their new home.
The appellants sought full replacement of the windows and doors, arguing that painting the anodized aluminum would be an inferior remedy.
Tarion offered $19,239.35 for cleaning and electrostatically repainting the affected areas.
The Tribunal preferred the evidence of Tarion's expert, finding that electrostatic painting was a practical, efficient, and proportional remedy for the cosmetic damage.
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to prove that full replacement was necessary and ordered Tarion to pay the $19,239.35 repair cost.
The court awarded $45,000 in partial indemnity costs to the defendants following a trial with divided success.
This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a trial where there was divided success between the parties.
The Defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, arguing they were the successful parties as they recovered compensation and secured protection from mortgage liability.
The Plaintiff also sought costs.
The court agreed that the Defendants were the successful parties for the purpose of costs but adjusted the amount claimed by the Defendants downwards.
The court awarded costs, including disbursements and taxes, to the Defendants in the amount of $45,000, to be paid by the Plaintiff.
