Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15387/ONHWPA

An appeal from a decision of Tarion Warranty Corporation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 (the “Act”), Section 14.

Between:

Krishna Persaud and Yogeeta Singh

Appellant

and

Tarion Warranty Corporation

Respondent

MOTION DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Colin Osterberg

Representatives:

For the Appellant: Krishna Persaud and Yogeeta Singh Self-represented

Danielle Peck, Counsel

HEARD in writing

OVERVIEW

1Yogeeta Singh and Krishna Persaud (the “appellants”) appeal the Decision Letter issued, pursuant to s. 14(13) of the Act, by Tarion Warranty Corporation (the “respondent”), on October 16, 2023, in relation to the appellants’ warranty claim for deficiencies in the roof shingles of their new home.

2The appellant brings this motion seeking to set aside an order made at the Case Conference held January 4, 2024 (the “inspection order”) requiring that, by April 5, 2024 the appellants will provide access to their property and home, at a mutually agreed date and time, for the purpose of an inspection of the roof, including a leakage test, by the respondent and its contractor/engineer/roofing expert.

3The parties made submissions in writing.

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute in this motion are whether the inspection order made at the Case Conference should be set aside.

RESULT

5The motion is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

6The appellants in their submissions have provided a number of reasons why the order given at the case conference should be rescinded. Those reasons are as follows:

i. Tarion has had multiple opportunities to investigate the appellant’s warranty claims and the appellants have cooperated with those investigations;

ii. Tarion has had an expert inspect the roof already;

iii. Tarion’s expert report is deficient for various reasons and the appellant’s have advised Tarion about those deficiencies;

iv. Despite numerous attempts by the appellants, Tarion has refused to reconsider their position on the warranty claim.

7Significantly, all of the reasons the appellant now gives for withdrawing their consent to the inspection were known to the appellants at the time of the Case Conference. The appellant has not raised any grounds for setting aside inspection order which were not already known to them when they consented to that order at the Case Conference.

8While it may be that Case Conference Orders may be amended in exceptional circumstances based on information or circumstances that arise after the conclusion of the Case Conference, the appellants have presented no significant information that was not known to them at that time. I would dismiss the appellant’s motion on this basis.

9Further, there is no provision in the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 which allows for a reconsideration of an interim order of the Tribunal such as this one. Rule 18 provides for the reconsideration of final decisions and not interim orders made at Case Conferences or Motions.

10I would caution the appellants that a failure by them to comply with their obligations under the Act, may result in a dismissal of their appeal.

11The appellant’s motion is therefore dismissed.

ORDER

12The appellant’s motion to set aside the Case Conference Order for inspection is dismissed.