RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Avril A. Farlam
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
17164/ONHWPA
Case Name:
Gaynor Fletcher v. Tarion Warranty Corporation
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant:
Gaynor Fletcher, Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Ayesha Mehreen, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On October 29, 2025, the appellant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released October 29, 2025 (“decision”).
2In the decision the Tribunal found that the appellant is not entitled to receive payment out of the guarantee fund.
3For reconsideration of decisions released on or after August 21, 2023, the grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules (“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 seeks reconsideration on grounds (a),(b), and (c) set out above. In summary, the appellant in its initial submissions and in reply, the appellant submits that the Tribunal made significant errors of law, failed to consider material evidence, and procedural fairness, rendering the decision unreasonable within the meaning of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (“Vavilov”).
5The appellant the following documents to the request for consideration (“Attachments”):
(i) Real Estate Council of Ontario decision dated July 31, 2025 (“RECO decision”),
(ii) Letter to the appellant from Ajay Duggal Professional Corporation dated August 4, 2024,
(iii) Screenshot of a YouTube video dated September 27, 2024,
(iv) Copy of “Applicant’s Reply to Hearing Brief of the Respondent” dated September 15, 2025,
(v) Written submissions “filed in support of appellant’s oral submissions delivered October 1, 2025”,
(vi) Written submissions of appellant titled “LAT Closing Submissions of the Appellant” dated October 16, 2025addressed to the Tribunal adjudicator who wrote the decision.
6The respondent submits that the appellant has failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18 and that the appellant’s request for consideration should be dismissed.
RESULT
7The appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
a) The Tribunal did not act outside its jurisdiction or commit a material breach of procedural fairness
8The appellant made no specific submissions and provided no evidence that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction.
9The appellant submits that there was “procedural unfairness in the treatment of a self-represented party” because:
(a) The Tribunal declined to admit portions of his “integrated binder” while accepting the respondent’s “full legal submissions”, thereby denying the appellant a fair opportunity to present his case.
(b) The Tribunal did not “extend procedural flexibility as required by s. 25.0.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which obligates tribunals to ensure fairness for self-represented parties as recognized in Kloepfer v. Kloepfer Construction Ltd., 2020 ONCA 716.
(c) The Tribunal “discounted my corroborating emails and realtor confirmations on the basis they were not “sworn”, even though Tarion never challenged their authenticity. That standard was disproportionate and inconsistent with the LAT’s own informal evidentiary principles”.
10None of these submissions establish that there was any procedural unfairness during the hearing process to the self-represented appellant.
11The admissibility of evidence, and the weight to be given to evidence admitted during the hearing is within the discretion of the adjudicator conducting the hearing.
12The adjudicator dealt with alleged procedural fairness issues at the hearing and the Tribunal demonstrated flexibility in dealings with the appellant given that she is self-represented, as set out in paragraphs 12 to19 of the decision.
13The adjudicator made the appellant aware that she could use her closing statement at the hearing to comment on why she may disagree with the respondent’s evidence or the weight that the Tribunal should assign to the respondent’s evidence as set out in paragraph 14 of the decision.
14I find no breach of procedural fairness to this self-represented appellant occurred during the hearing, let alone a material breach of procedural fairness. The appellant’s submissions have not persuaded me otherwise.
15I find that the appellant has not established this ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 (a).
b) The Tribunal did not make an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made;
16Although the appellant submits that there were issues of law or fact made by the Tribunal such as misapplication of the test for “fundamental breach”, material evidence ignored about the RECO decision and the builder’s reputation, unreasonable findings on the assignment clause, mischaracterization of evidence, and failure to interpret and apply the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and its regulations correctly, I disagree. All of these issues were raised at the hearing and addressed appropriately in the Decision.
17Paragraphs 22 to 28 of the decision deal with the issue of “fundamental breach”.
18The Tribunal was aware of the RECO decision and the builder’s reputation given that the RECO decision was admitted into evidence at the hearing. It is not necessary that an adjudicator set out every fact, submission, or legal authority in the decision.
19Paragraphs 67 to 75 of the decision deal with the builder’s position on the contract.
20Paragrahs 34, 35 and 43 to 45 of the decision deal with the assignment clause.
21Paragraphs 8 to 65 deal with the facts in detail.
22Paragraphs 66 to 75 set out the legal authorities considered in rendering the decision.
23It is clear from the decision and the fact that closing submissions were made at some length by both parties that the appellant was given ample opportunity to put forward the appellant’s evidence and submissions. That a decision made that the appellant disagrees with does not establish that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact within the meaning of Rule 18.2(b).
24I find no error of law or fact occurred during the hearing, let alone an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not be made. The appellant’s submissions have not persuaded me otherwise.
25I find that the appellant has not established this ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 (b).
c) There is no 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
26The Attachments to the appellant’s request for reconsideration are not “new evidence” given that all are dated before the decision and appear to have been submitted to the Tribunal during the hearing.
27The RECO decision was entered into evidence at the hearing. If any of the Attachments were not submitted during the hearing, these documents were in existence and could have been put foward.
28I find no evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision that could not have been obtained previously by the appellant, let alone evidence that would likely have affected the result. The appellant’s submissions have not persuaded me otherwise.
29I find that the appellant has not established this ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 (c).
30The 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.
31A reconsideration is a limited, error correcting exercise. It is not an appeal nor an opportunity to re-argue a case.
32I find that the appellant has not established this possible ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
33I find that the appellant has not established any of the possible grounds for reconsideration in Rule 18.
34The grounds for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision are limited, specific and their purpose is to correct errors in the initial decision. In order to succeed on a reconsideration request, at least one of the grounds must be established. Because the appellant has requested reconsideration, the onus is on him to establish his grounds and he has failed to do so. The appellant’s reconsideration submissions are an attempt to reargue his case and achieve a different outcome.
35Dissatisfaction with the decision is not a ground of reconsideration. The Tribunal has long recognized that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue one’s case, 1 nor is it a hearing de novo or an appeal.2
36For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the appellant’s request for reconsideration of my decision.
Avril A. Farlam
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: January 13, 2026
Footnotes
- N.D. v. Aviva Insurance Company, 2021 CanLII 64232; N.R. v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2020 CanLII 101753; Gore v.Rusk, 2022 ONSC 2893 at para. 50 (Div. Ct).
- Warren v. Licence Appeal Tribunal, 2022 ONSC 3741 at para. 22 (Div. Ct.).