Catherine Longo

The respondent, Tarion Warranty Corporation, requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision awarding the appellant damages for a breach of warranty regarding a front door substitution.

Tarion argued the Tribunal erred in fact and law by awarding damages that included installation and reframing costs rather than just the difference in material value between the two doors.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact.

The Tribunal confirmed that the substituted door could not be installed without structural modifications, making the installation costs a reasonable component of the damages for the breach of warranty.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding compensation for an unauthorized substitution of a front door by the builder.

The builder installed a smaller doorframe with a transom window instead of the agreed-upon wider doorframe with a side light window.

Tarion initially awarded $195.09, representing the difference in material cost.

The Tribunal found that the transom window was not an equivalent substitution and that the proper measure of damages was the cost to replace the doorframe to accommodate the originally agreed-upon side light door.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay the appellant $8,907.45 plus HST, based on an estimate provided by Tarion's estimator.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision limiting their deposit refund claims to the amounts paid by bank draft, denying the portions allegedly paid in cash.

The appellants had entered into reservation agreements for two condominium units and subsequently rescinded the agreements.

The Tribunal found the appellants established on a balance of probabilities that they each paid over $100,000 in cash to the vendor, corroborated by bank records, the vendor's testimony, and handwritten receipts.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay each appellant the maximum statutory compensation of $100,000.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his claim for delayed occupancy compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The builder had unilaterally extended the Firm Occupancy Date due to the COVID-19 pandemic, relying on the Unavoidable Delay provisions in the Addendum to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Tribunal found that the builder met the notice and evidentiary requirements of section 5 of the Addendum in setting the new Firm Occupancy Date.

Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to compensation from the guarantee fund for delayed occupancy, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that denied her payment out of the guarantee fund for a delay in occupancy of her condominium units.

The appellant sought to introduce new evidence and argued the Tribunal made an error of law or fact regarding the interpretation of the Tarion Addendum and the roof assembly date.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the proposed new evidence either was already considered or did not meet the test for admission, and that the appellant failed to establish any error of law or fact that would have changed the result.

The Tribunal noted that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-litigate a case.

The appellant purchased three condominium units and claimed compensation from Tarion Warranty Corporation for delayed occupancy under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Tarion denied the claims, finding that occupancy was provided on the Firm Occupancy Date.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the builder failed to provide a notice of the Roof Assembly Date, which should have triggered a delayed occupancy claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vendor provided occupancy on the Firm Occupancy Date of October 18, 2019, and the failure to provide a roof assembly notice did not entitle the appellant to the delayed occupancy warranty.

No costs were awarded.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found they failed to prove the parapet walls on their new home were not constructed in a workmanlike manner or constituted an unauthorized substitution under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of fact or law, no evidence that false testimony affected the result, and that the proposed new evidence could have been obtained earlier and was irrelevant to the outcome.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding their new home.

The appellants claimed damages for the builder's installation of poplar stairs instead of the oak stairs specified in the agreement, the omission of side parapet walls, and poor exterior brick workmanship.

The Tribunal found that the installation of poplar stairs was an unauthorized substitution under s. 19 of Regulation 892 and awarded the appellants the full replacement cost of $11,990 plus HST, rejecting Tarion's argument that damages should be limited to the difference in value.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the parapet walls and exterior bricks, finding no breach of warranty as the construction met acceptable standards of workmanship and the appellants had no contractual right to select the exterior elevation design.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for delayed occupancy compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants experienced multiple delays in the closing of their new home and ultimately signed an agreement with the builder granting an extension in exchange for waiving their right to delayed closing compensation.

The Tribunal found that the waiver agreement was clear, unequivocal, and negotiated with the assistance of legal counsel, with no evidence of coercion or bad faith.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed Tarion's decision and dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants had validly waived their right to compensation.

The plaintiff moved for production of TD General Insurance Company's file contents.

TD, acting as the statutory third party and motor vehicle liability insurer for defendant Jamil Haider, resisted the motion, asserting litigation privilege.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, holding that litigation privilege had not been waived by TD taking an off-coverage position or by its solicitors ceasing to act for the insured.

The court found that the plaintiff's request was too broad, the information sought was not directly relevant to the plaintiff's *lis* with TD, and crucially, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was no reasonable alternative form of evidence to obtain the information, having not exhausted all avenues to obtain information from the insured or other sources.