OLAT 2010

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for a deposit refund and delayed closing compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicants had entered into an agreement to purchase a new home and paid a $27,000 deposit, but the transaction failed to close due to a dispute over funds.

The applicants subsequently sued the vendor in Superior Court and settled the action for $60,000, signing a full and final release.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants were not owners entitled to delayed closing compensation, did not meet the statutory requirements for a deposit refund, and were precluded from further recovery by the full and final release.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding defective hardwood flooring in their new home.

The applicants sought over $17,000 to replace the entire floor, alleging improper installation.

Tarion and the builder maintained that only localized repairs and touch-ups were necessary, offering $1,800 in compensation.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence that the damage was limited and repairable, largely caused by elevated moisture rather than installation errors.

However, the Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay $2,400, reflecting the builder's revised estimate for the necessary repairs.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for four issues in their new home: noisy vents, a leaking basement patio door, water ponding on the lakeside patio, and cupping of the hardwood floor.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the vents and the water ponding, finding that the vents met Building Code requirements and the ponding was caused by subsidence, which is excluded from warranty.

However, the Tribunal allowed the claims for the basement patio door and the hardwood floor cupping.

The Tribunal found that the basement door leaked and should be replaced, similar to the upper patio door.

Regarding the hardwood floor, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicants' experts, finding that the cupping was caused by excessive moisture resulting from defective work and an inadequate HVAC system, rather than improper maintenance or an 'unattended house syndrome.' The Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay $17,069.78 for the patio door and $50,846.44 for the replacement of the hardwood floor.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a request for a conciliation inspection regarding the brick colour of their new home.

Tarion brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the request was statute-barred.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to request the conciliation inspection within the prescribed time limit under O. Reg. 892 of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Consequently, the tribunal ordered that the applicant's claim was out of time and dismissed the appeal.

The Applicant condominium corporation appealed Tarion's decision to disallow a claim for water penetration in the building's common elements.

Tarion argued the claim was reported outside the two-year warranty period and was barred by a release signed by the Applicant and the builder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that notice of the water penetration was provided within the warranty period through unit owner forms and the performance audit.

The Tribunal also held that the release was unenforceable due to ambiguity and did not cover the water penetration claim.

Finding that the building envelope was defective and allowed water ingress, the Tribunal ordered Tarion to ensure specific remedial work is completed.

The applicants appealed Tarion's denial of their claim for a Major Structural Defect regarding their new home's hydronic heating system.

The home suffered from severe heating issues, requiring the applicants to supplement heat with a wood stove and causing family members to move out during the first winter.

Evidence revealed that the under-slab insulation was significantly below the Building Code and design specifications, the PEX tubing was not properly elevated in the concrete, and several heating loops were leaking.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that these defects in work and materials materially and adversely affected the use of the building as a home.

The appeal was allowed, and Tarion was directed to perform remedial works to replace the heating distribution system and install proper insulation.

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 homeowner appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing numerous claims for alleged construction defects in a new home.

After a 16-day hearing, the Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed 18 remaining disputed items, including complaints about hardwood flooring, exterior grading, and unfinished work.

The Tribunal found that only two minor items—rusting on an exterior iron railing and a missing exterior light fixture—constituted breaches of the statutory warranty under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The remaining claims were dismissed as either excluded by the Act (e.g., normal shrinkage, improper maintenance) or failing to meet the threshold for poor workmanship.

Due to the acrimonious relationship between the parties, the Tribunal ordered a payment of $800 out of the guarantee fund rather than requiring the builder to perform repairs.

Additionally, the Tribunal awarded costs of $800 each to Tarion and the builder due to the homeowner's vexatious conduct during the proceedings.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims against the builder of their new home.

The claims alleged defects in outside trim, window sill slopes, window seals causing condensation and air infiltration, and floor joist inadequacies.

The Tribunal found that the builder complied with the Ontario Building Code and industry standards, and that the alleged defects were either design choices, normal occurrences like condensation due to high indoor humidity, or acceptable variations in construction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed Tarion's decision.

The builder and Tarion's requests for costs against the applicants were also dismissed, as the Tribunal found the applicants' conduct was not frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a claim for cracks in the basement and garage floors of a new home.

The applicant argued the cracks were unacceptable, while Tarion and the builder contended the cracks were minor and resulted from normal shrinkage.

The Tribunal found that the cracks were well within the acceptable limits set by the Construction Performance Guidelines and constituted normal shrinkage, which is excluded from the statutory warranty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying portions of their first and second-year statutory warranty claims regarding their new home built by Tanis Woods Development Inc. The Tribunal reviewed several outstanding items, including the front doors, kitchen cabinets, garage man door, exterior bricks, eaves troughs, bathroom vents, and a wheelchair accessible toilet.

The Tribunal found that the garage man door closure mechanism was defective and upheld that claim.

For the front doors, the Tribunal awarded $985 as previously offered by Tarion for repairs, rejecting the claim for full replacement costs.

All other claims were dismissed as they either fell within acceptable construction guidelines, constituted normal wear and tear, or did not breach the building contract or Ontario Building Code.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims regarding the hardwood floor in their new home.

The vendor had sanded and re-finished the floor to repair dents and cracks, which altered the floor's appearance and removed its micro-bevels.

The Tribunal found that the resulting floor was a typical Brazilian Oak floor without defect and dismissed the claims regarding aesthetics.

However, the Tribunal awarded the applicants $300 to conceal an un-re-finished strip of flooring caused by the floor finishers shifting the kitchen island, finding this to be a defect in workmanship.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying eight first-year warranty claims regarding their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed claims including cracked door frames, staircase veneer, basement landing nosing, a ceiling leak, misaligned tiles, and missing windows.

The Tribunal found that the basement landing nosing was poorly installed and the basement window was improperly omitted contrary to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, awarding $1,213.25 for these two items.

The remaining claims were dismissed due to expired warranty periods, lack of evidence, or being covered by prior settlement agreements and waivers.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying claims under the Second-Year Warranty of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The claims involved alleged water leakage, defective marble tile installation, masonry cracks, and other construction issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that none of the items constituted a breach of the Second-Year Warranty, as they were either normal shrinkage, not covered by the warranty, or met the Ontario Building Code requirements.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for a $32,599 deposit refund.

The applicants had entered into agreements to purchase a home but were unable to close due to an inability to secure sufficient financing.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to adduce any evidence that the vendor fundamentally breached the contracts.

Rather, the breach was on the part of the applicants.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was ordered to carry out its decision.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing their claim for a sewer smell in their new home's main bathroom sink.

The applicants alleged the smell was due to a defect in materials or workmanship.

The Tribunal accepted expert plumbing evidence that the plumbing was in proper condition, the debris in the trap was normal, and the smell could be resolved through regular homeowner maintenance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

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 applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for a new home built by Maple Crest by Serrani Inc. The claims involved an allegedly incorrect transom over garden doors, scratched windows, and a front elevation that differed from the architectural rendering.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the transom shape was not specified in the agreement, the applicant failed to prove the builder caused the window scratches not noted on the pre-delivery inspection, and the agreement permitted the builder to alter external elevations from the artist's conceptions.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing claims for cracked bathroom tiles and a ridge in the hardwood floor under the first-year warranty.

The applicant, who purchased the home from the original owner 10 months after occupancy, argued the defects occurred during construction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the vendor caused the cracked tiles, noting they were not on the pre-delivery inspection form and appeared to have been repaired by the previous owner.

The tribunal also found the hardwood floor ridge measured 5 mm, which did not meet the 6 mm threshold for warranty repair under the Construction Performance Guidelines.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would cause exceptional hardship to their refrigeration business.

The vehicle had been driven by the applicant's spouse, whose licence was suspended for life due to an impaired driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had alternative modes of transportation available, as they were currently using their personal vehicle for business purposes.

Since an alternative existed, the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met.