Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16889/ONHWPA

In the matter of an appeal of a decision of Tarion Warranty Corporation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 to deny a claim.

Between:

Julie Serafin

Appellant

and

Tarion Warranty Corporation

Respondent

MOTION DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Rupinder Hans

Representatives:

For the Appellant:

Julie Serafin, self-represented

For the Respondent:

HEARD in writing

Noah Eklove, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1Julie Serafin, (the “appellant”) appeals from a Decision Letter, dated March 4, 2025, issued by the respondent Tarion Warranty Corporation (“respondent”) to deny the appellant’s claim under s.14(3) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 (the “Act”). The issue to be decided by the Tribunal is the amount of compensation owed with respect to the one warranted item set out in the Notice of Appeal.

2The appellant brought a motion for production of documents, namely the “Record Drawings (As-Built Drawings) for the property located at 18 Verglas Lane” (the “Drawings”). The appellant submits the Drawings are essential to resolving the ongoing air leak issue in the kitchen of the home.

3The respondent advises that it has provided the requested documents.

ISSUES

4The issue in dispute is:

i. Whether the Tribunal should order that the documents requested by the appellant be produced.

RESULT

5I find the requested documents have already been provided to the appellant by the respondent, and the motion is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

6Rule 9.2.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules provides that a party may seek an order from the Tribunal ordering a party to, among other things, disclose any document or thing the Tribunal considers relevant to the issues in dispute. Rule 9.2.1 further provides that the Tribunal will not make an order for the production of any document or thing that is unduly repetitious. Rule 9.1 provides that the Tribunal may order any party to disclose documents the Tribunal considers relevant to the issues in dispute in the proceeding.

7The purpose of a production order under Rule 9 is to ensure the parties have the documents which are relevant to the issues in dispute and know the case to meet.

8The onus is on the appellant to show that the documents and things she is seeking are relevant to the issues in dispute.

9The appellant submits that the respondent should produce the Drawings for the home as they are essential and would allow proper evaluation of the current construction conditions and inform further investigation into the persistent air leakage issue. Further, the appellant submits that the Drawings would allow the RJC engineering team a more thorough review of any site modifications to the constructed assemblies. She asserts that RJC’s engineering report states that the photos of the as-built conditions at the soffit assembly were noted to not match the soffit assembly described in the 2013 Permit Drawings made available to RJC, and the 2020 architectural drawings made available to Paterson Group. The appellant did not provide the RJC report to the Tribunal. Nonetheless, I note the appellant is seeking the Drawings to allow further investigation of the warranty claim, and she is taking the position that the Drawings are relevant to the issue to be decided by the Tribunal.

10After the motion was filed, the respondent sent an email, dated October 2, 2025, to the appellant and Tribunal attaching a number of drawings, and advising that those drawings had been provided to the respondent by the builder Richcraft Homes recently. I note the attached drawings consist of thirteen pages.

11The respondent also attached the same drawings to the affidavit of Ecem Yuskel, dated November 3, 2025, filed in response to the appellant’s motion. Mr. Yuskel advises that those drawings were received from Richcraft Homes and had been forward to the appellant per the email dated October 2, 2025. He further advises that those drawings were the “Record Drawings (As-Build Drawings)” for the home. In my view, the provided drawings appear to be the Drawings requested by the appellant in the motion.

12I note the appellant did not file any reply submissions which were due by November 10, 2025. As such, she has not indicated or particularized that any documents were missing from the Drawings provided by the respondent on October 2, 2025, and again on November 3, 2025. Absent any specifics or details of missing documents, I cannot make any determination as to what documents may be outstanding, nor do I do so. I note the onus is on the appellant in this regard.

13In the circumstances, I make no determination as to whether the requested documents are relevant to the issues in dispute. Instead, I find that the respondent has provided the Drawings to the appellant, and it would appear the appellant’s motion is moot. I note that Rule 9.2.1 provides that the Tribunal will not make an order for the production of any document or thing that is unduly repetitious. Given that the Drawings have already been provided to the appellant, I decline to make a production order.

14Given the above, the appellant’s request for production of documents is denied.

Conclusion

15I find that the respondent has provided the documents sought by the appellant.

ORDER

16I dismiss the appellant’s motion for production of documents.