RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Colin Osterberg
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
16984/ONHWPA
Case Name:
Bridget O’Neil v. Tarion Warranty Corporation
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant:
Bridget O’Neil, Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Ayesha Mehreen, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On November 17, 2025, the appellant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated November 7, 2025 (“decision”).
2In the appeal, the appellant sought warranty coverage for 3 items under s. 14(13) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 (the “Act”). In the decision, the Tribunal held that the appellant had not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that any of the alleged deficiencies are breaches of warranty under the Act and the appellant’s claims were denied.
3The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; or
c) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
4The appellant requests that the Tribunal reconsider the decision in respect of two of the items in dispute, the slope of the porch and the construction of a fireplace bump-out in the home. In their request for reconsideration, the appellant does not specifically state which of the available grounds in Rule 18.2 they are relying on. However, a review of the submissions indicates that the appellant is taking the position that the Tribunal made errors of fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made according to Rule 18.2(b), and that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result according to Rule 18.2(c).
5The appellant does not specifically state the relief she is requesting; however, it is assumed that she is requesting that the Tribunal vary or cancel the decision or order, or that it order a rehearing of all of part of the matter, in accordance with Rule 18.4(b).
RESULT
6I am not satisfied that the Tribunal, in its decision, made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
7I am not satisfied that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
8The request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
9The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, or with the weight assigned to the evidence. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
10I find that in their reconsideration submissions, the appellant asks the Tribunal to re-weigh the evidence presented and to come to a different conclusion with respect to whether the items claimed should be warranted under the Act. This is not the purpose of a reconsideration.
Slope of the porch
11The appellant has not satisfied me that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made with respect to the slope of the porch.
12With respect to the claim that the slope of the porch is excessive, the appellant asks me to review the photographs and laser measurements which were in evidence at the hearing, which the Tribunal reviewed in its decision, and come to a different conclusion as to the slope of the porch. I find that in its decision, the Tribunal reviewed the photographs that the appellant is referring to as well as the laser measurements that were in evidence, weighed that evidence, and came to a conclusion as to the issue in dispute. The findings made by the Tribunal were ones which were open for the Tribunal to make and were reasonably grounded in the evidence and arguments before it. I will not reweigh the evidence as is being requested.
13I am not satisfied that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made with respect to the slope of the porch.
Chimney bump-out
14The appellant has similarly not satisfied me that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made with respect to the chimney bump-out.
15The appellant argues that the builder made an unauthorized substitution and did not ensure that the constructed item was of equal or better quality than the item set out in the agreement of purchase and sale. Specifically, the appellant says that instead of including a fireplace in the construction as required by the agreement of purchase and sale, only a “bump-out” was built and that this was a breach of warranty under the Act.
16In the decision, the Tribunal reviewed the appellant’s submissions and concluded that, although the bump-out was installed in error, it was not a warrantable defect under the Act because there was no evidence that it was not constructed in a workmanlike manner; that it contained a defect in material; that it rendered the house unfit for habitation; or that it was not constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code (OBC).
17I find that the Tribunal reviewed the arguments that the appellant put forward at the hearing (and is renewing in their request for reconsideration) and accepted the evidence of the inspector who conducted the conciliation inspection that the bump-out is a component of the home that the homeowner may choose to make use of in the future even though it does not have a current use and that there were no defects in workmanship and that it complied with the OBC.
18The appellant alleged at the hearing (and renews again on reconsideration) that there are gaps in the siding installed on the outside of the home involving the bump-out. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence presented by the parties including the photographs presented by the appellant and did not see evidence of the gaps alleged by the appellant to be visible in the photographs. This was a conclusion that was available to the Tribunal and it is not for me to reweigh the evidence presented in order to come to a different conclusion.
19The Tribunal’s findings were open for it to make on the evidence presented at the hearing and I am not satisfied that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made with respect to the chimney bump-out or the gaps alleged by the appellant.
New evidence
20The appellant has not established that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
21In their reconsideration submissions, the appellant referred to a video that they took of the siding which they say shows gaps in the siding referred to above more clearly than the photographs presented at the hearing.
22Reconsideration may be a grounded in evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result pursuant to Rule 18.2(c). While this video was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, Rule 18.2(c) has the further requirement that it “could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it.” Here, I find that the appellant fails to meet this essential element of the rule.
23The appellant has made no submissions to suggest that the video evidence could not have been obtained previously by the appellant. It appears that the video is taken of the gaps that were alleged at the hearing and I find that this is evidence that was available to the appellant to obtain and introduce at the hearing. As such, I find that this evidence does not meet an essential element of Rule 18.2(c).
24I am not satisfied that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
25I am not satisfied that the Tribunal, in its decision, made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
26I am not satisfied that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
27The request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Colin Osterberg
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: February 17, 2026