Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17505/ONHWPA

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

Between:

Stanly Thomas

Appellant

and

Tarion Warranty Corporation

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Rupinder Hans

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Stanly Thomas, Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Ayesha Mehreen, Counsel

Nicole Kennedy, Warranty Services Manager

Court Reporter:

Christine Rieck

Heard: by videoconference

February 12, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Stanly Thomas (the “appellant”) appeals from a decision letter issued by the Tarion Warranty Corporation (“Tarion”) on July 24, 2025 (the “Decision Letter”), which denied his claim for one item listed on the Year-End Form under section 14(3) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 (the “Act”).

2The appeal concerns the appellant’s new home in London, where he lives with his family. The appellant submits there was water found along the interior walls of his unfinished basement, and the builder of the home, 2594441 Ontario Inc. o/a Birchwood Homes (the “builder”), had a third-party contractor complete repairs to the cracks on the interior basement foundation wall, but no repairs were made to the exterior wall, which should have been done. The appellant further submits no repair was undertaken at the back west wall window area where water leakage was also discovered.

3Tarion determined the foundation crack repairs were completed in a workmanlike manner, and no defect was present, and it was industry standard to repair cracks from the interior.

4The appellant has the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the defect or deficiency reported in a claim is a breach of the builder warranty, and if so, the amount of damages that arise from the breach, i.e., the cost or repairing or replacing the warranted defect to the intended standard.

5A one-day hearing was held in this matter, and the appellant testified along with Nicole Kennedy, a warranty services manager with Tarion, and Najah Suojhayer, a customer care coordinator with the builder.

ISSUES

6The issues to be determined are:

i. Was there a breach of warranty in respect of the alleged defect to the basement walls as set out in the Year-End Form; and

ii. If so, what is the amount of damages?

RESULT

7For the reasons stated below, I find the appellant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that there was a defect that is covered by a new home warranty under the Act. I confirm Tarion’s denial of the claim.

ANALYSIS

The Appellant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that a breach of warranty exists

8I find the appellant did not meet his burden of proof with regard to the claim.

9Under section 13(1) of the Act, every vendor or builder of a new home warrants to the owner that it is constructed in a workmanlike manner and is free from defects in materials, is fit for habitation, and constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code (“OBC”). Under section 13(1), the builder also warrants to the owner such other warranties as are prescribed by the regulations.

10Section 14 of the Act sets out the basis for compensation that might accrue to a homeowner if there is a breach of warranty under section 13. Section 14(3) stipulates that, subject to the regulations, a homeowner is entitled to receive payment out of Tarion’s Guarantee Fund (the “Fund”) for damages resulting from a breach of warranty.

11The appellant presented video evidence establishing that water had leaked into the home’s unfinished basement. He testified that water had leaked from three areas, and he acknowledged the builder had inspected all three areas and completed repairs to two of the three reported areas on the interior walls but had failed to complete any repairs on the third area (the back west wall window area), and the exterior walls of the home to properly address the issue. The appellant testified he remained concerned that cracks may become bigger and, absent repairs to the exterior walls and the back west wall window area, water may continue to leak into the basement from the exterior of the home.

12I note that Tarion inspected the home after the repairs had been completed. Tarion presented two conciliation assessment reports, dated March 31, 2025 and June 4, 2025. The first conciliation report noted that repairs had been completed to the interior foundation walls, and an exterior inspection was also completed. However, due to the cold temperatures a water test was not completed. The report notes that, in order for Tarion to properly assess the item, a water test needed to be completed during the warmer months.

13A conciliation re-inspection was completed on May 21, 2025, and Tarion presented the conciliation assessment report dated June 4, 2025 (“June 4th Report”). The June 4th Report states an inspection of the basement was completed by Tarion which included inspecting the two crack repair locations which has been repaired by interior injections. In addition, an investigation of the back west wall window area was conducted and there were, notably, no cracks identified in that area. The report further states that Tarion completed water tests in the three areas identified by the appellant, specifically, at each of the crack repair locations and the third identified area (the back west wall window area), pursuant to Appendice A5, 5.2 of the Construction Performance Guidelines which states in part:

“5.2 Below Grade:

Use a standard garden hose with no attachments. The hose bib should be set at about half flow to simulate melting snow or rainfall. The water from the hose is to be directed along the face of the foundation to allow the water to run parallel to the wall, at grade, finding its own way down the exterior of the wall to the perimeter foundation drains. Run the water for not more than 20 minutes checking periodically for water penetration."

14I note the appellant did not challenge the utility of the Construction Performance Guidelines or provide an alternative metric by which to assess defects, and I am persuaded to rely upon them.

15The June 4th Report further states that Tarion observed no water entry in any location after completing the water tests, including the two crack repair locations and the back west wall window area. The June 4th Report concludes the foundation crack repairs were completed in a workmanlike manner, the foundation showed no signs of water penetration during the testing, and thus, the item was not warranted.

16The appellant was present during the water testing by Tarion, and he testified there was no water leakage or penetration during testing. However, he remains concerned there may be minor leakage that may not be visible, and he wants repairs on the exterior in case of further issues.

17Tarion also presented and relied upon an inspection report from Proseal Building Systems Inc. (“Proseal”), dated April 3, 2025 (“Proseal Report”), which notes the company was retained by the builder to review the crack repairs, and to flood test the East and West elevations of walls to confirm the completed repairs were sufficient in rectifying the water infiltration concern. Proseal attended the home on March 27, 2025, and noted that low-viscosity polyurethane resin designed for single-component injection had been utilized to repair the cracks and the injected resin had penetrated and fully consolidated. The Proseal Report states the method of crack injection was sufficiently completed and polyurethane resins are designed for this scenario as permanent repair as they penetrate fine cracks in rock and concrete and react with water to form a semi-rigid hydrophobic foam barrier. Once cured, the hydrophobic seal repels water and serves as a long-term solution to water infiltration.

18The Proseal Report notes a water test was performed and a water hose was left running for 40 minutes at each of the crack repair locations to ensure an adequate amount of water was introduced to the foundation wall in an attempt to make the repaired crack areas leak with the large influx of introduced water. The result was no signs of water infiltration into the home, and Proseal concluded that the repairs were successful. In his testimony, the appellant acknowledged he was present during the water testing, and the results showed no water penetration into the home.

19Ms. Nicole Kennedy, warranty services manager with Tarion, testified the water testing by Tarion was conducted per the Appendice A5, 5.2 of the Construction Performance Guidelines which is the method used to water test below grade and the water was left on for 20 minutes and there was no water penetration. She further testified the water testing by Proseal was different in that the water was left running for 40 minutes which is more extensive, and the results were the same. I accept her testimony that the water activated polyurethane resin used to complete the crack repairs was suitable for repairing cracks in the basement walls, and that water testing confirmed there was no water penetration. There is no evidence before me to refute this assertion, and the appellant has not directed me to any reports or evidence to the contrary.

20Ms. Najah Suojhayer, customer care coordinator for the builder, testified she attended the appellant’s home along with the site supervisor and they conducted a thorough inspection of all three areas identified by the appellant. She testified there were hairline cracks on two areas of the three identified areas, and thus, the builder undertook the repairs in a workmanlike manner. I give weight to her testimony that the builder retained Proseal to provide further inspection and testing to ensure the completed repairs addressed the water penetration issue appropriately.

21I find the June 4th Report and the Proseal Report to be persuasive in establishing the repairs were completed in the requisite workmanlike manner, and that there is no defect under the Act. I find that extensive water testing was undertaken by both Tarion and Proseal, and there were no signs of water infiltration. I am particularly persuaded by the June 4th Report as it makes clear that water testing was completed on all three areas identified by the appellant, and as per the Appendice A5, 5.2 of the Construction Performance Guidelines.

22I further note the appellant has not directed me to any evidence demonstrating the repairs were not completed in keeping with industry standards or that there continues to be a defect. His testimony clear establishes that he was present during water testing by both Tarion and Proseal, and he confirmed there was no water penetration during testing. I cannot find that there is a defect as per the Act.

23Accordingly, I find on a balance of probabilities that there was no breach of warranty.

Conclusion

24The appellant did not meet his burden in demonstrating that the claim was a breach of the warranty under s. 13 the Act. Since there was no breach of warranty, it is not necessary to consider the amount of damages.

ORDER

25Pursuant to s. 14(19) of the Act, I order the appeal to be dismissed and direct Tarion to deny the claim.