OLAT 2011

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing their claim for water penetration in two basement storage rooms under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicants argued that moisture in the rooms constituted a major structural defect, estimating repair costs at $50,000.

Tarion's representative testified that the moisture was due to condensation, which is excluded from warranty coverage under the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to prove the existence of a warranted defect and confirmed Tarion's decision to disallow the claim.

The Added Party's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her warranty claim for a defective HVAC system in her new home.

The system failed to adequately heat the lower floors and cool the upper floors, and the air handler frequently locked out.

Tarion argued the equipment was excluded from warranty because it was leased from a third party.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that leased equipment supplied by the vendor is not excluded under section 13(2)(a) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, as it was not supplied by the owner.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's expert regarding the extent of the defects and the necessary remediation.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered Tarion to pay the applicant $40,000 in compensation to repair the HVAC system and building envelope to comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for four items in their new home: sink holes in the lawn, a steep swale slope, thin driveway asphalt, and a sinking cornerstone.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

The Tribunal found that the extensive sink holes in the lawn were caused by inadequate topsoil compaction and were therefore warranted.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the swale slope (a municipal requirement), the driveway asphalt (no evidence of unworkmanlike construction under the guidelines), and the sinking cornerstone (expressly excluded from warranty coverage).

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing their claims for various alleged construction defects in their new home, primarily asserting that the home's elevation was too low.

The Tribunal found that while there were some minor defects, the applicants failed to provide corroborating evidence or prove damages.

Furthermore, the applicants unreasonably refused to allow the builder access to the property to perform necessary repairs.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was ordered to deny the claims.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for 18 items related to the construction of their new home.

The items included foundation parging, drywall defects, and issues with the ensuite bathroom.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the claims were submitted after the expiration of the one-year warranty period prescribed by the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that none of the defects fell within the scope of the two-year extended warranty under Regulation 892.

The Tribunal concluded it had no discretion to extend the statutory one-year claim period and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing a claim for a Major Structural Defect regarding the breakdown of a hot water installation that serviced radiant floor heating and a snow melt system.

The applicant argued that the hot water tank was misapplied and its failure left parts of the home without supplemental heating.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that because the home's primary heat source was two furnaces, the loss of the supplemental radiant heating and snow melt did not materially and adversely affect the normal use of the building as a home, and therefore did not meet the statutory definition of a Major Structural Defect.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for compensation for a delayed closing of a new home.

The applicants argued the builder was at fault because the home was not 97% complete, causing their mortgagee to withhold funds.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the home was ready for occupancy under the Ontario Building Code on the scheduled closing date, save for front steps which were not installed because the applicants had already requested an extension.

The Tribunal held that the builder was not bound by the mortgagee's requirements and that the delay was not the builder's fault.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The applicants alleged that the builder breached the warranty by installing vinyl windows instead of the wood windows specified in the purchase agreement, claiming the vinyl windows were inferior and caused health issues for the wife.

The builder argued it was entitled to substitute materials of equal or better quality.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the home was unfit for habitation due to the vinyl windows.

Relying on expert evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the vinyl windows were of equal or better quality than the wood windows, noting their similar performance, better water penetration resistance, and significantly lower maintenance requirements.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a builder and vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Registrar refused registration on the basis that the applicant lacked technical competency, having failed the technical competency test three times with scores well below the required average.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant lacked the necessary familiarity with the Ontario Building Code to properly supervise projects and perform warranties.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The applicants appealed Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision to deny their claims regarding various construction defects in their new home, including grading, brickwork, ceramic tiles, roofing, and foundation cracks.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants failed to prove their case on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of Tarion's representative and expert, who had tested their conclusions, over the applicants' expert, whose theories were untested.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to provide evidence of the costs of the repairs they sought.

The Applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying several claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding their newly-built home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed claims relating to cement work, paint, cabinets, a range hood, toilets, a shower, flooring, and ductwork noise.

The Tribunal dismissed all claims except one, finding that most issues were either not defects in materials or workmanship, fell under statutory exclusions like normal shrinkage, or were private contractual disputes outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the stone work above the garage doors, finding that the builder's substitution of horizontal stone work instead of the contracted arched stone work constituted a defect in workmanship, and ordered Tarion to have the arched stone work constructed.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registration of a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson following the dealer's guilty pleas to two counts of fraud over $5,000 related to improperly changing Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) on rebuilt vehicles.

The Tribunal found that while the convictions were serious and industry-related, significant mitigating factors existed.

The dealer cooperated with police, took educational courses, retained an expert to ensure future compliance, and spent $66,000 to repurchase the affected vehicles, ensuring no consumer suffered financial loss.

The Tribunal concluded the past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds to believe the dealer would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal.

The applicant, a funeral director and owner of a funeral home, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee suspending her licence for falsifying embalming records.

The applicant claimed to have performed six embalmings that were actually performed by another intern.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal conducted a fresh hearing and found overwhelming evidence that the applicant lied about performing the embalmings and attempted to implicate her employees in the deception.

Finding that the applicant lacked the integrity and honesty required to operate as a funeral director, the Tribunal substituted the Discipline Committee's suspension with an order revoking the applicant's licence.