Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17067/ONHWPA & 17268/ONHWPA

In the matter of 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:

Balbir and Veena Lamba

Appellants

and

Tarion Warranty Corporation

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Kevin Kovalchuk

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellants:

Balbir Lamba, Self-represented Veena Lamba, Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Christopher Gallo, Counsel

Heard:

By Written Submissions

OVERVIEW

1Balbir Lamba and Veena Lamba (the “appellants”) appeal from decision letters dated April 4, 2025, and May 28, 2025, issued by Tarion Warranty Corporation (“Tarion”) denying the appellants claim for warranty coverage for approximately 146 items under section 14(13) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act R.S.O. 1990, c.O.31 (the “Act”) and for items not included in the decision letters.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE:

2In their Notice of appeal dated May 6, 2025, the appellants submit that because of the unreasonable delay by Tarion in providing a decision letter they were unable to use or begin construction on their basement as a decision letter was required beforehand. The appellants submit that they “had agreed that one year would be a reasonable timeframe to resolve these issues” and that since the timeline was not met, they are seeking compensation of $4,500 a month starting from the end of that one-year period. The appellants have not produced any evidence that there was any written agreement with Tarion to resolve these issues within a particular timeframe.

3Tarion submits that a homeowner is entitled to be paid out of the Guarantee Fund the cost of repair for the warranted defect. Tarion submits that it has no liability for any other damage direct or indirect.

4The Divisional Court in Liddiard v. Tarion Warranty Corp., 2009 CanLII 65801 (ON SCDC) (“Liddiard”) describes at paragraph 52, what is covered under s. 13(1) of the Act and what is considered secondary damage as follows:

What is conferred by the warranty is the right to have done that which should have been done correctly in the first instance or a sum of money to purchase the labour and materials to do so. Any loss or damage that is derivative of the failure to construct in accordance with s. 13(1) is secondary and therefore excluded.

5In the present case the appellants are making a claim for damages due to a breach of an alleged agreement. I find that the damages claimed by the appellants are not the type that are covered under the Statutory Warranty, and I rely on Liddiard in that regard.

ISSUES

6The issues to be determined are:

i. Whether claim items, 4, 11, 12, 18, 34, 42, 49, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 96, 97, 98, 100, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 122, 123, 126, 128, 138, 139, 142, 143, 145, 148, 151, 154, 156, 159, 161, 163, 164, 165, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 194, 196, 197, 200, 203, and 204 from the 30-day warranty from constitute a breach of warranty under s. 14(3) of the Act.

ii. Whether claims items, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 17, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 60, 61, 62, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, and 85 from the year-end warranty form constitute a breach of warranty under s. 14(3) of the Act.

iii. Whether claims items 2, 7, 8,10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the second-year warranty form constitute a breach of warranty.

iv. If so, whether the appellants suffered monetary damages resulting from the breach(es) of warranty; and

v. If so, the amount of these damages.

RESULT

7Having considered all of the evidence and for the reasons that follow I find that:

a. The defect in Item #4 falls within the 30-day warranty coverage provided by the Act, that damages have resulted from the defect and that the amount of these damages is $668.00 plus HST. I order Tarion to pay the appellant $668.00 plus HST for Item #4

b. The defect in Item #12 falls within the 30-day warranty coverage provided by the Act, that damages have resulted from the defect and that the amount of these damages is $575.00 plus HST. I order Tarion to pay the appellant $575.00 plus HST for Item #12.

c. The defect in Item #145 falls within the 30-day warranty coverage provided by the Act, that damages have resulted from the defect and that the amount of these damages is $150.00 plus HST. I order Tarion to pay the appellant $150.00 plus HST for Item #145.

d. I find that the defect in Item #72 falls within the year end warranty coverage provided by the Act that damages have resulted from the defect and that the amount of the damages is $175.00 plus HST. I order Tarion to pay the appellant $175.00 plus HST for item #72.

e. I find that the defect in Item #4 falls within the year – end, warranty coverage provided by the Act, that damages have resulted from the defect and that the amount of those damages is $750.00 plus HST. I order Tarion to pay the appellants $750.00 plus HST for Item #4.

f. The appellants have withdrawn their appeals as they relate to the following items, and as a result I do not need to make a determination regarding those items:

a. Items 383, 93, 154, 191, 194, 196, and 203

b. Items 33 and 48 on the year-End Warranty Form and

c. Item 12 on the Second-Year Warranty Form

g. I find that the rest of the items claimed are either not breaches of the warranty or that the appellants are otherwise not entitled to claims for these items and I order Tarion not to pay them.

ANALYSIS

8Tarion takes the position that a number of items claimed by the appellants are excluded from warranty coverage pursuant to s. 13(2) of the Act for various reasons which will be discussed in the body of this decision.

9The appellants submit that all of the items claimed constitute a breach of warranty.

The Statutory Warranty

10Section 13(1)(a) of the Act provides that the vendor of a home warrants to the owner that the home is constructed in a workmanlike manner and is free from defects in material, is fit for habitation and is constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code and that the home is free of major structural defects.

11Section 13(2)(b) of the Act provides that a warranty under subsection (1) does not apply in respect of secondary damage caused by defects, such as, property damage and personal injury.

12The onus is on the appellants to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defects in the home fall within the warranty coverage, that monetary damages have resulted from the defects and the amount of those damages. The Tribunal owes no deference to Tarion’s decision.

13The homeowner is also obliged to provide reasonable access to the home for the builder to attempt to repair or resolve the defects being claimed under the warranty, and access for Tarion to inspect the warranty claims and to determine if they constitute a breach of warranty.

14In their submissions the appellants made multiple broad references to pictures and their own “opinion” to show that materials and workmanship were deficient. Often however, the appellants did not provide other evidence in support of their claims.

15In my view, it is not sufficient for the appellants to point to areas of construction with which they are dissatisfied and expect the Tribunal, in the absence of any other evidence, to conclude that the workmanship does not meet industry standards simply because the appellants allege it is so. There must be some objective evidence before the Tribunal defining the industry standard and identifying the manner in which the complaint falls below the standard.

16Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, pursuant to s. 14(19) of the Act, direct Tarion to take such action as the Tribunal considers Tarion ought to take in accordance with the Act and the regulations, and for such purposes the Tribunal may substitute its opinion for that of Tarion.

Background

17These appeals relate to a new build home (the “home”) purchased by the appellants from the Vendor/Builder Sky Homes Corporation via an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”) dated September 10, 2020. The municipal address for the home is 375 Torrey Pines Road, Vaughan, Ontario.

18For the purpose of this appeal, it is important to note that the APS included several schedules including schedule “A” which listed standard features for the home. It included a “general notes section” that reads:

• All references to size, measurements, materials, construction styles, trade/brand/industry name or terms may be subject to change or variation within generally accepted industry standards and tolerances…

• All references to features and finishes are as per applicable plan or elevation and each item may not be applicable to every home.

• All features and finishes where purchasers are given the option to select style and/or colour shall be from the predetermined standard selections

• The Vendor reserves the right to substitute alternative materials and fixtures of equal or better quality

• All illustrations are artist’s concepts

• The purchaser acknowledges that the floor plan may be reversed

• Specifications may change without notice.

19There is also a schedule “X” to the APS which provides for a number of terms and conditions including the following:

• The vendor may in certain circumstances in its sole discretion and without notice change vary or modify the plans and specifications to the home and that the Purchaser shall have no claim or cause or action for such changes

• There can be variation in size and dimension of the property up to five percent of the dimensions or square footage noted in the brochure

• Colour variances may occur

• Types of flooring may result in different heights in transition areas

• Hardwood flooring may react to normal fluctuation in humidity levels which will produce gapping or cupping which shall be accepted by the Purchaser if within the acceptable industry standard

• Architectural control of external items may be imposed which the Purchaser agrees to accept without a claim for abatement in purchase price

• The Purchaser has purchased the property based on plans rather than a model and understands that model homes are for display purposes only and therefore will not contain the same features

20Tarion originally attempted to encourage the use of a Scott Schedule which the appellants originally agreed to. A Scott Schedule is a columnar presentation of the issues to be decided and the position of each party on the issues. However, the appellants were unable to input their argument and evidence into the schedule. I will therefore address the appellants’ claim items as they appear in their Notices of Appeal.

Claim Items from the 30-Day Warranty Form

21Item #4 Entrance Porch – The appellants allege that “the slope of the concrete [sill] near main entrance is sloped toward the house and in winter water stays on the door sill making it icy and slippery”. The appellants submitted a report from AUM Property Inspections Inc. dated August 22, 2025, (“AUM”), which opines that the slope is a defect and should be away from the threshold to remove water accumulation. Tarion submits that it is a covered porch and that there is no concern of water ingress and no defect. I accept the report of AUM Property Inspections that this a defect in workmanship. I find this to be a breach of warranty pursuant to s. 13(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The appellants produced a repair quote from Mega Group Construction dated November 2, 2023. The quote was for $668.00 plus HST. I find this quote to be reasonable and that it would resolve this item.

22Item #11 Entrance Porch – The roof parapet metal flashing is not sloped on the roof side and water is ponding on metal. The appellants allege that proper slope is needed because water ponding will reduce the life of the metal and start leaking soon. The appellants have not met the burden of proof on this issue. They have not produced a report from an expert of a defect, nor do they provide any evidence of a defect aside from pictures of the flashing, which I do not find to be helpful. As a result, I do not find a breach of warranty.

23Item#12 Entrance Hallway -Floor Tile Defective The appellants submitted a report from AUM dated August 22, 2025. The report reads that one floor tile in the main entrance foyer appears to have visible inner surface scratches which could not be felt on the surface. The report goes on to state that there is no damage to the glazed surface of the tile. The report opines that the defect appears to be a manufacturing issue as the scratches are embedded within the tile itself under the glazing. I accept the report of AUM that this is a defect in material. I find this to be a breach of warranty. The appellants produced a repair quote form AUM for $575.00 plus HST. Tarion did not provide a competing quote, and I am therefore left with the quote from AUM. I find that $575.00 plus HST would resolve this item.

24Item #18 – The appellants submit that the hallway to the powder room ceiling height is reduced. In the hallway it is not 10 ft. The main floor ceiling height should be 10 ft as per the contract. The APS and schedules outlined earlier in these reasons allow the vendor to change specifications of the home and I find that this change falls within the allowable changes the vendor can make as set out in the APS. Furthermore, the appellants have not provided any evidence with respect to a defect in the ceiling height and have not met their burden of proof on this issue. I do not find a breach of warranty.

25Item #34 Powder Room – The appellants submit that the ceiling height in the powder room is lowered and should be 10 ft high as per the contract. As noted earlier the APS gives the builder broad discretion to make changes. Furthermore, the appellants have not provided any evidence with respect to a defect in the ceiling height and have not met their burden of proof on this issue. I do not find a breach of warranty.

26Item #42 Hallway in front of elevator, main floor -The appellants submit that the floor squeaks in front of the stairs. The appellants have not met their burden of proof on this issue as they have presented no evidence with respect to a defect causing the squeak, what the cause of the squeak is, or how it should be repaired, other than to say, it is there. I do not find a breach of warranty.

27Item #49 Den -The appellants submit that the den is not built to drawings, and it is short in size. The APS allows the vendor/builder to make changes to allow for variations in dimensions. The appellants have not produced any independent evidence of a defect and have not met their burden of proof on this item. I do not find a breach of warranty.

28Item #63 Family Room -The appellants submit that the family room is not built as per drawings and is short in size. The APS allows the vendor/builder to make changes to allow for variations. The appellants have not produced any independent evidence of a defect and have not met their burden of proof on this issue. I do not find a breach of warranty.

29Item #64 Family Room – The appellants submit that the waffle ceiling design in the family room is not per the drawings. The APS allows the vendor/builder to make changes at its sole discretion. The appellants have not produced any independent evidence of a defect and have not met their burden of proof on this issue. I do not find a breach of warranty.

30Item #67 Main Kitchen –The appellants submit that the kitchen size is not built as per drawings. The APS allows the vendor/builder to make changes to allow for variations. The appellants have not produced any independent evidence of a defect and have not met their burden of proof on this issue. I do not find a breach of warranty.

31Item #68 Main Kitchen – The appellants submit that the cabinets are squeezed in length, and the area of cabinets is reduced comparative to that shown on drawings. The appellants submit that the cabinets are not installed exactly as the drawings. Schedule P.E. to the APS, titled Sky Homes Corporation Purchaser Extras which was submitted by both the appellants and the respondent has attached to it drawings for the main kitchen. The drawings indicate “this is a sketch for DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY-it is not meant to be an exact rendition”. As well, the APS allows the vendor/builder to make design changes, and I find that this is the type of design change allowable under the APS. The appellants have not produced any evidence that this is a defect and have not met their burden of proof on this issue. I do not find a breach of warranty.

32Item #69 Main Kitchen – The ceiling light is not installed in the middle. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that this was a requirement in the APS or that it is a defect. They simply argue that it is aesthetically unpleasing. I find that the appellants have not met their burden of proof on this issue. I do not find a breach of warranty.

33Item #70 Main Kitchen – The appellants submit that the island stone is shorter in size than shown on drawing floor plan. The appellants submit that according to drawings the breakfast bar should have minimum 12-inch overhang but does not. As noted earlier the vendor/builder had discretion to make changes to the design. The appellants have not provided any evidence of a defect and have not met their burden of proof on this issue. I do not find a breach of warranty.

34Item #71 Main Kitchen – The appellants submit that the countertop stone and cabinet beside the range top opening are not built as per shown on floor plan and kitchen drawings. The appellants submitted a partial copy of a drawing of the main kitchen in support of their claim. However, the appellants did not submit a complete copy of the drawing in their submissions. Tarion however did submit a complete copy of the drawing which has the notation ““This sketch is for DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY- it is not meant to be an exact rendition”. As well the APS allows the vendor/builder to make design changes. The appellants have not provided any evidence of a defect and have not met their burden of proof on this issue. I do not find a breach of warranty.

35Item#73 Main Kitchen – Cabinet edges meeting the floor are chipped off. The appellants have submitted no evidence as to the cause and only produced a picture of the refrigerator gable end showing that the laminating surface is separating. Tarion submits that this is normal wear and tear and is not warranted. I am unable to conclude from the picture submitted by the appellants that there is a defect, and I therefore do not find a breach of warranty.

36Item #74 Main Kitchen –The appellants submit that the cabinets are not built as per appliances specification provided. The appellants did not meet their burden of proof that there is a defect with respect to this item. They produced no independent evidence of a defect only a picture which they submit shows improper design. I am unable to conclude from the picture that this is evidence of improper design. I find that this is insufficient evidence of a defect. I do not find a breach of warranty.

37Item #75 Main Kitchen –The appellants submit that the range top opening in the lower cabinet and hood fan opening in upper cabinet are not centred. They submit that the hood fan opening is not exactly above range top opening. The appellants have provided no evidence in support of their allegation that this is a defect and have not satisfied their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

38Item # 76 Main Kitchen –The appellants submit that the glass cabinets on the sides of hood fan are not of same size. The appellants submit a partial copy of a drawing of the main kitchen in support of their claim. However, the appellants did not submit a complete copy of the drawing in their submissions. Tarion however did submit a complete copy of the drawing which has the notation “This sketch is for DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY- it is not meant to be an exact rendition. As well the APS allows the vendor/builder to make design changes. The appellants have provided no evidence in support of their allegation that this is a defect and have not satisfied their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

39Item #77 Main Kitchen –The appellants submit that the Fridge gable end is very thin, and it is already chipped off at edge near floor and “bended” from both sides. The appellants did not meet their burden of proof that there is a defect with respect to this item. They produced no independent evidence of a defect only a picture which they submit shows poor workmanship. I find that this is insufficient evidence of a defect. I do not find a breach of warranty.

40Item #82 Main Kitchen – Cabinet doors are crooked /bent. Tarion found this to be a warranted defect. However, Tarion submits that the appellants prevented the builder from fulfilling its obligations to make repairs through denied access and are therefore disentitled from compensation out of the guarantee fund. Tarion submitted a Claim Inspection report dated June 20, 2023, wherein Tarion reports that during the post conciliation repair period the appellants agreed to an appointment to address this item. However, after the appellants cancelled the appointment, the builder offered additional dates, but the appellants declined all future dates prior to the claim inspection. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that they attempted to have this item remedied by the builder, instead they claim $38,968.00 plus HST for kitchen cabinets. As the builder was not given an opportunity to make repairs I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

41Item #83 this item has been withdrawn by the appellants in their written submissions. As a result, I need not make a determination of whether this is reasonable.

42Item #86 Spice Kitchen -Pocket door to spice kitchen door handles has no grip. The appellants did not meet their burden of proof that there is a defect with respect to this item. They produced no independent evidence of a defect only a picture which they submit shows improper design. I find that this is insufficient evidence of a defect. I do not find a breach of warranty.

43Item #87 Spice Kitchen - Pocket door is not straight. The appellants did not meet their burden of proof that there is a defect with respect to this item. They produced no independent evidence of a defect, only a picture which they submit shows improper design. I find that this is insufficient evidence of a defect. I do not find a breach of warranty.

44Item #88 Spice Kitchen- Door side frame not even. The appellants did not meet their burden of proof that there is a defect with respect to this item. They produced no independent evidence of a defect only a picture which they submit shows improper design. I find that this is insufficient evidence of a defect. I do not find a breach of warranty.

45Item #89 Spice Kitchen- Paint finish is very poor. Tarion found this to be a warranted defect. However, Tarion submits that the appellants prevented the builder from fulfilling its obligations to make repairs through denied access and are therefore disentitled from compensation out of the guarantee fund. Tarion submitted a Claim Inspection report dated June 20, 2023, wherein Tarion reported that during the post conciliation repair period the appellants agreed to an appointment to address this item. However, after the appellants cancelled the appointment, the builder offered additional dates, but the appellants declined all future dates prior to the claim inspection. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that they attempted to have this item remedied by the builder. As the builder was not given an opportunity to make repairs, I find the appellants are disentitled to this claim item.

46Item #90 Spice Kitchen – Microwave cabinet is not built as per appliance specifications provided. Tarion found this to be a warranted defect. However, Tarion submits that the appellants prevented the builder from fulfilling its obligations to make repairs through denied access. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that they attempted to have this item remedied by the builder. As the builder was not given an opportunity to make repairs, I find the appellants are disentitled to this claim item.

47Item #93 Spice Kitchen – Fridge cabinet bottom edges chipped off. This item was withdrawn by the appellants prior to the written hearing.

48Item #96 Spice Kitchen- The appellants allege that the valance lighting is missing. The appellant submitted a document titled Schedule P.E. to the APS and highlighted number 11 on the document which reads “valance lighting in kitchen beneath cabinetry”. Although the appellants produced other documentation specifically referencing the Spice Kitchen, they did not produce any documentation to show that valance lighting was to be installed in the Spice Kitchen. The appellants have not met their burden of proof to show that there is a defect with respect to this item. I do not find a breach of warranty.

49Item #97 Spice Kitchen – The appellants submitted that upgrade 8 tiles were supposed to be installed by the builder as per schedule PE item 12, which were upgraded to upgrade 9, but they were charged for this upgrading from Upgrade 3 to Upgrade 9 instead, at the cost of $4,320.00 +HST. They submit that should be credited back to them. The appellants did not submit any evidence as to why this should be considered a defect and as such have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

50Item #98 Laundry- Light turn on/off switch is attached with the light at garage entrance hallway. The appellants submit that the laundry room should have a separate switch from the garage entrance hallway. The appellants submitted a picture of the laundry room light and the garage entrance foyer light with the notation these are two distinct areas yet both lights turn on simultaneously even when lighting is only needed in one space - such as during laundry tasks. The appellants did not submit any evidence as to why this should be considered a defect and as such have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

51Item #100 Laundry – 2nd stair to basement missing drywall. The appellants submitted a picture of a finished staircase showing what they allege to be missing ceiling drywall. Tarion submitted that they conducted an inspection of this area and noted that the area is unfinished space and that drywall was not required in this area. The appellants did not submit any evidence as to why this should be considered a defect and as such have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

52Item #103 Laundry – The appellants allege that the edges of steps from both spice kitchen and laundry room are not finished at floor level, in the hallway at garage door entry. They also allege that there are multiple touch ups. The appellants submitted a picture with a handwritten note that wood moulding is required to cover the exposed mortar. The appellants did not submit any evidence as to why this should be considered a defect and as such have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

53Item # 104 Garage- Floor has multiple cracks. Tarion conducted an inspection of the garage and measured the largest cracks specified by the appellants. The largest crack was 2mm with the majority being less than 1mm. Tarion submitted that the Construction Performance Guideline article 14.2 states “cracks resulting from normal shrinkage are acceptable; crack width in excess of 6 mm is not acceptable”. The Tribunal is not bound to follow the Construction Performance Guideline but has found them to be a useful tool. The appellants submitted a picture of cracks in the garage floor and wrote on the picture “these cracks suggest that either the specified wire steel mesh of reinforcing rebars were not installed prior to concrete pouring, or that the construction deviated from the approved structural drawings”. This “opinion” of the appellants is not corroborated by any expert evidence. I prefer the evidence of Tarion on this issue and accept the Construction Performance Guideline on the issue. I find that the appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

54Item #105 - Garage wall not painted. Schedule A of the APS states that all garage walls are to be drywalled and primed. Tarion found this to be warranted. A claim inspection by Tarion completed on March 15, 2023, found the repair to have been completed. The appellants then raised a different concern with respect to a block wall in the garage that was not painted. The appellants have submitted a picture of an unpainted block wall. Tarion submits that this item was not raised at conciliation. I have reviewed the Tarion Conciliation Assessment Report dated November 11, 2022; the painting of the block wall was not raised at that time. Tarion submits that the appellants must request that Tarion conduct a conciliation to assess the claim and assess whether there has been a breach of warranty by the vendor. I find that Tarion was not given an opportunity to assess this claim and as such I do not find a breach of warranty.

55Item #107 Garage -Middle door, bottom panel is kicked inside not aligned and is not level. The appellants submitted a picture of a garage door that purported to show a “kicked in panel”. The appellants did not submit any evidence as to why this should be considered a defect and as such have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

56Item #109 Garage –The appellants allege that, rebars are not laid from the foundation wall to garage floor and that the structural drawings are not followed. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that the garage floor should be reinforced with rebar. Tarion submitted that the Construction Performance Guidelines article 14.3 states “Unless the slab is specifically intended and designed to be a structural slab, reinforcing or mesh is not required”. I prefer the evidence of Tarion and accept the Construction Performance Guideline on the issue. I find that the appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

57Item #110- The appellants submit that garage rebars “are not laid in garage floor” and cracks have developed “all over the floor”. The appellants have not provided any evidence that the garage floor should be reinforced with rebar. Tarion measured the largest cracks identified by the appellants. Tarion measured the largest crack at 2mm, but the majority were less than 1mm. Tarion submitted the Construction Performance Guidelines article 14.3 which states “Unless the slab is specifically intended and designed to be a structural slab, reinforcing or mesh is not required” and article 14.2 which states the “Cracks Resulting from normal shrinkage are acceptable; crack width in excess of 6 mm is not acceptable”. I prefer the evidence of Tarion and accept the Construction Performance Guideline on this issue. I find that the appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

58Item #112 Garage –The appellants submit that base plates are not installed in the foundation to anchor the steel posts and that the steel posts are just sitting on the foundation and are not anchored. The appellants further submit that structural drawings “are not followed”. The appellants also submit that the steel posts are not anchored to the foundation. Tarion produced a report from XTX Engineering dated February 22, 2022. XTX reviewed the impugned item and concluded that the columns as installed are structurally sound and constructed in conformance with the Ontario Building Code (“OBC”), section 9.17.3. In addition, Tarion retained the services of Pinchin Ltd., engineers to assess this item. In a report dated December 22, 2023, Pinchin Ltd. reported that the base plates of the steel columns in the garage were reported by the Owner to measure 100mm x 100mm x 6.35 mm. However, the plates could not be reviewed by Pinchin Ltd. during a site visit as they were concealed behind wall and ceiling finishes. However, Pinchin Ltd. opined that based on the description provided by the Owner, it can be inferred that the plates are sufficient to transfer the loads. The appellants have not submitted any expert evidence in support of their claim. They simply state that the steel columns installed in the garage are structurally unsound and dangerously non-compliant with Canadian building codes. I prefer the evidence of Tarion because of the report of Pinchin Ltd. I find that the appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

59Item #113 Garage -The appellants submit that the steel posts base plate and top plate are very thin, approx. 3 to 4 mm thick and submit that these should be 9 mm thick. Tarion produced a report from XTX Engineering which found the top and bottom plates to be structurally sound and met the minimum requirements of the Ontario Building Code 9.17.3.2(1). The appellants have not provided any objective evidence with respect to this item other than their “opinion” as to the thickness of the plates. I find that the appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

60Item #122 Master Bedroom – The appellants submit that the ceiling height at the room entrance door is 7ft however, as per the contract it should be 9 ft. The APS allows the vendor/builder to make changes at its sole discretion. The appellants have not produced any independent evidence of a defect and have not met their burden of proof on this issue. I do not find a breach of warranty.

61Item #123 Master Bedroom – The appellants allege that the coffered ceiling in the lounge area is built very bulky and neither matching with the main master bedroom coffered ceiling nor any other coffered ceiling built in the house. They submit that this looks very ugly and ruined the whole master bedroom look. The appellants have not provided any evidence of a defect. As such have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

62Item #126 Master Bedroom- The appellants submit that the heat vents in floor are not placed symmetrically and are “falling” under the furniture. The appellants have not provided any evidence of a defect and as such have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

63Item #128 master bedroom – Washroom shower has missing foot wash taps. The appellants have not provided any evidence of a defect and as such have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

64Item #138 Master Bedroom -The appellants submit that the drainpipes are very noisy. The appellants did not submit any evidence to show that this was a defect or poor workmanship. They did submit a copy of Schedule A to the APS which reads at #93 under the heading heating electrical and plumbing: flexible “PEX” water pipe to reduce noise and eliminate solder contaminants in plumbing system”. Tarion referenced the Construction Performance Guideline article 6.8 which states “water supply pipes shall be installed to minimize the effects of water hammer and in accordance with the Building Code. Drainage pipes shall be installed in accordance with the Building Code”. The appellants did not produce any evidence that the drainpipes did not comply with the Building Code and as such have not shown this to be a defect or poor workmanship. As such they have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

65Item #139 Master Bedroom – Washroom marble stone countertop has stains and scratches. The appellants have not submitted any evidence in support of this item except to state that the marble stone countertop in the master ensuite bedroom has multiple surface scratches. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

66Item #142 Bedroom 2- Room hallway light and room light have one switch to turn on and off. The appellants submit that these should have separate switches. They submit that the hallway should have a two way on/off switch, one in the hallway and another in the room beside the hallway. The appellants did not submit any evidence in support of this item except for their own opinion. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

67Item #143 Bedroom 2 -The appellants submit that Schedule P.E did not state that the glass shower would have a Fiberglass base, and that they were shown mosaic tiles at the décor centre, but later on the details of the bathroom had been changed to include a fiberglass base without discussion. They submit that they had to pay to upgrade to mosaic tiles as well as administrative charges that cost them $4,386.15. The appellants have not submitted any evidence to prove that the floor would be mosaic tile. They have not proven a defect and as such have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

68Item #145 Bedroom #3 – The appellants submit that according to schedule PE to the APS handheld showers were supposed to be included in all showers, but the bedroom ensuite does not include a handheld shower. The appellants have submitted a picture of a shower head purported to be in bedroom #3. There is no handheld shower shown as required by schedule PE to the APS. I find this to be a breach of warranty. The appellants have not submitted any independent evidence of the cost to remedy this breach. They have however provided their “opinion” that it would cost $150.00 plus HST to supply and install a handheld shower fixture and plumbing connections. I find that $150.00 plus HST to be reasonable and should resolve this item.

69Item #151- Bedroom 4- The appellants submit that the return air duct is not installed in this room “it is suffocated”, and the air is not circulated. The appellants have not produced any evidence other than their own opinion that this is not compliant with the Ontario Building Code. They have not proven a defect and have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

70Item #154 Loft tape joints visible. This item was withdrawn by the appellants in their written submissions.

71Item # 156 Loft – The appellants submit that the walk-in closet walls are crooked. Tarion found this item to be warranted but the appellants declined compensation and repairs pre conciliation and post conciliation. Tarion submitted an email dated March 11, 2022, from Sky Homes to the appellant Balbir Lamba offering a refund of $2,304 in lieu of tearing down the wall and rebuilding it. Tarion submitted a series of emails about this issue culminating in an email dated August 23, 2022, where Sky Builders states “we were prepared to remove and reinstall the loft flooring in July. You refused repair on the day of the appointment and continue to do so, instead you are insisting that we rebuild the wall, which we never said we would do since the receipt of the 30-day list is not possible. Since then, an alternate acceptable method of repair, to shim out the wall was determined. This is a permanent, reasonable method of repair which you are refusing.” The appellants have not submitted any evidence to refute Tarion’s submission that they refused the repair. Tarion submits that the appellants have prevented the builder from fulfilling their obligations to make repairs through denied access thus disentitling the appellants to compensation out of the guarantee fund. I agree with Tarion’s submissions. As such I find the appellants are disentitled to this claim item.

72Item #159 Loft – The appellants submit that the windowsill and window border is not built in the balcony as per drawing. The appellants have not submitted any evidence in support of their claim. The appellants did not meet their burden of proof with respect to this item. I do not find a breach of warranty.

73Item #161 Loft – The appellants submit that the balcony walls at floor level are not protected with metal flashing, that the front side, roofing membrane is open and not protected. The appellants submit their opinion that “flashing is a critical component for protecting the waterproofing membrane from UV exposure and physical damage and is essential to the long-term integrity of the waterproofing system”. The appellants submitted a report from AUM opining that the aluminium flashing over the balcony of the front entrance porch was not fitted properly and missing calking. The AUM report does not corroborate the appellants opinion that flashing is critical. Tarion has submitted a letter from the roofing installer Trudel and Sons Roofing stating that “flat roof membrane upturns do not require metal flashing to cover it up as per manufacturer”. I accept the letter from Trudel over that of AUM because Trudel specifically addresses the issue of weather flashing is required whereas AUM simply states that the flashing was not fitted properly. I find that the appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

74Item #163 Loft – The appellants submit that the bathroom marble stone countertop has scratches. The appellants have not submitted any evidence in support of this item. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

75Item #164 Outside –The appellants submit that the bricks and stone are not installed “as per our signed colour selections these are completely changed, colour, pattern and pointing in bricks”. The appellants seek a complete re-brick of the house. The appellants submitted a document titled “Purchasers’ exterior brick preferences” it notes the following “Please note these are preferences only, while every effort will be given to select one of these packages, the builder cannot guarantee as all exterior colour packages are architecturally controlled” This is also set out in schedule X of the APS. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

76Item #165 Outside-The appellants submit that precast stones are not installed at the garage door sided as per shown in elevational drawings. The appellants have not submitted any evidence in support of this claim except for a picture of two garage doors with the number 375 above them and a handwritten notation that the precast is missing. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

77Item #170 Outside -The appellants submit that the walkway stones are not installed from driveway to side entrance door. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that a walkway must be installed from the driveway to the side door except for three photographs of the side of the house, one of which contains a notation that because there are no paving stones or concrete path from the driveway to the side door the side entrance is inaccessible and “nonfunctional”. This is not evidence of a defect but simply the appellants’ opinion. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

78Items #171 and 172 Outside -The appellants submit that the rear deck and garage to lawn stairs wood post foundations are not centred and that the wood posts are sitting on the edges of the foundation. They further submit that the foundations for the wood deck are built too high from the grading level. Tarion retained the services of Pinchin Ltd. to assess this item. Pinchin determined that several parts of the deck were constructed in a deficient manner Tarion therefore warranted these items. Because of the size of this claim Tarion (as required) has commenced a bidding process to value these repairs. This process is currently ongoing. Tarion has not made a decision on the compensation level for these claims. Section 14(13) of the Act requires Tarion to serve notice of the decision together with the reasons for the decision on the claimant and any other persons if prescribed. A notice under subsection (13) shall state that the claimant is entitled to appeal the decision to the tribunal by providing notice to the tribunal and Tarion and any other prescribed persons in the form and within the time prescribed. As a Tarion has not served a notice of the decision, I am unable to rule on this aspect of the claim.

79Item #173 Outside - The appellants submit that the outside foundation for the deck stairs is not built to support the stairs ending at the ground. They submit that this is just sitting on ground, and this will move down or sideways with ground settlement. The appellant has not produced any evidence in support of this item. Tarion has submitted an engineering report of XTX Engineering that approved this construction. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

80Item #174 Outside - The appellants submit that the deck stairs have too many risers in one lift, should have one landing in between, and are very uncomfortable to climb. Tarion retained the services of Pinchin Ltd. to assess this item. Pinchin determined that several parts of the deck were constructed in a deficient manner Tarion therefore warranted these items. Because of the size of this claim Tarion (as required) has commenced a bidding process to value these repairs. This process is currently ongoing. Tarion has not made a decision on the compensation level for these claims. Section 14(13) of the Act requires Tarion to serve notice of the decision together with the reasons for the decision on the claimant and any other persons if prescribed. A notice under subsection (13) shall state that the claimant is entitled to appeal the decision to the tribunal by providing notice to the tribunal and Tarion and any other prescribed persons in the form and within the time prescribed. As a Tarion has not served a notice of the decision, I am unable to rule on this aspect of the claim.

81Item #176 Basement - The appellants submit that cracks in the basement concrete floor are “all over”. Tarion measured the largest cracks specified by the appellants. Tarion measured the largest cracks at 2mm, but the majority were less than 1 mm. Tarion has referenced the Construction Performance Guidelines article 1.4 which states “cracks resulting from normal shrinkage are acceptable; however, cracks in excess of 4 mm in width are not acceptable”. The appellants submit that cracks ≥3 mm are considered beyond the acceptable limit for standard concrete curing. The appellants do not provide any authority for this submission. In addition, the appellants submitted pictures purporting to show multiple cracks in the basement floor. I prefer the evidence of Tarion to that of the appellants because of the Construction Performance Guideline. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

82Item #178 Basement – The appellants submit that the tiles are dirty, and grout is all over on the tiles in the finished section of the basement. The appellants have not produced any evidence that the condition of the tiles is a result of a defect. They have failed to meet their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

83Item #180 #181 and #182 Basement – The appellants submit that the basement steel columns are not level and that the steel posts are not supporting the beam from middle and that these are off centre. Tarion retained the services of Pinchin Ltd. to assess this item. As a result of a determination by Pinchin Ltd. Tarion warranted these items. Because of the size of this claim Tarion (as required) has commenced a bidding process to value these repairs. This process is currently ongoing. Tarion has not made a decision on the compensation level for these claims. Section 14(13) of the Act requires Tarion to serve notice of the decision together with the reasons for the decision on the claimant and any other persons if prescribed. A notice under subsection (13) shall state that the claimant is entitled to appeal the decision to the tribunal by providing notice to the tribunal and Tarion and any other prescribed persons in the form and within the time prescribed. As a Tarion has not served a notice of the decision, I am unable to rule on this aspect of the claim.

84Item #183 Basement – The appellants submit that the steel posts base plate and top plate are very thin approx. 3 to 4 mm thick however these should be 9 mm thick. Tarion submitted a report of XTX Engineering that approved the installation and use of this item and that it is in conformance with the building code. In addition, Tarion retained Pinchin Ltd. to assess this item. Pinchin Ltd. determined that these components were installed correctly. The appellants have provided no evidence of a defect and have presented no objective evidence other than their “opinion” with respect to this item. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

85Item #184 Basement – The appellants allege that the steel post base which is embedded in concrete floor is not protected from rusting. The appellants have not submitted any objective evidence in support of this claim other than their own “opinion” They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

86Item #185 Basement –The appellants allege that part of steel post is in gravel thickness and is in direct contact with the moisture and dust and will rust with time. They allege that this will be a safety hazard with time. Tarion retained the services of Pinchin Ltd. to assess this item. As a result of a determination by Pinchin Ltd. Tarion warranted these items. Because of the size of this claim Tarion (as required) has commenced a bidding process to value these repairs. This process is currently ongoing. Section 14(13) of the Act requires Tarion to serve notice of the decision together with the reasons for the decision on the claimant and any other persons if prescribed. A notice under subsection (13) shall state that the claimant is entitled to appeal the decision to the tribunal by providing notice to the tribunal and Tarion and any other prescribed persons in the form and within the time prescribed. As a Tarion has not served a notice of the decision, I am unable to rule on this aspect of the claim.

87Item #186 Basement -The appellants submit that the Insulation below the floor along the side wall is not laid to [cut freezing line]. The appellants submit that the basement lacks insulation below the floor slab along the side walls which is necessary to protect against frost penetration and maintain energy efficiency. The appellants do not provide any objective evidence in support of this item except their own opinion. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

88Item #187 and #188 Basement -The appellants submit that the basement central vacuum point was not made in basement. The appellants submit that in the absence of any exclusions the default interpretation is that rough - in should be present in all the areas of the home as part of the standard installation. The appellants seek the installation of a central vacuum rough-in in the basement with at least two access points. Tarion submits that the APS notes that the central vacuum is to be roughed in and that no specific location was specified. Tarion further submits that the appellants are attempting to rewrite the rules of contract interpretation in that, because the APS does not say they wouldn’t receive two basement outlets they should and that this is nonsensical. I agree with Tarion. The APS does not specify where the rough in is to be located. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

89Item #190 Basement – The appellants submit that the basement stairs in the finished area are supported from the floor however, they submit that these should be supported from walls as is done upstairs. The appellants submit that the staircase in the finished basement is improperly supported unlike the upper floors where the open-riser staircase and landings are structurally supported from the walls, the basement staircase landing is supported by a visible post from the floor. They submit their opinion that “this inconsistency in construction indicates that the side walls adjacent to the basement staircase were not built with adequate structural support to carry the load of the landing. As a result, a post was used as workaround to support the stairs. This approach compromises the design continuity of the home, interferes with the functionality and aesthetics of the finished basement and reduces the overall value and usable space in the area”. Tarion submitted that aesthetic preference is excluded from the statutory warranty and that there is no defect. I agree with Tarion. The appellants have not submitted any objective evidence of a defect other than their opinion that there is one. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

90Item #194 this item has been withdrawn by the appellants in their written submissions.

91Item #196 this item has been withdrawn by the appellants in their written submissions.

92Item #197 -The appellants submit that foot wash taps are missing from the glass showers. The appellants submit their “opinion” that these taps are considered a standard feature in modern shower installations and are both functional and necessary for day-to-day hygiene, particularly for tasks such as washing feet, rinsing the shower area or assisting with personal care needs. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that foot wash taps were part of the APS and have submitted no objective evidence in support of their opinion. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

93Item #200 Outside – The appellants submit that the windows in the side wall of the house are not installed in one level and are not installed as per drawing. Tarion submitted that the builder had the ability to make changes at its sole discretion as outlined in Schedule X to the APS. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that this item is a defect or poor workmanship. As such they have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

94Item #203. This item was withdrawn by the appellants in their written submissions.

95Item 204- The appellants submit that the outside driveway was not built as per selected stones. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that this item is a defect. The APS allows the builder discretion to make changes. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

Claim Items from The Year End Warranty Form

96Item #1 -The appellants submit that the entrance hallway; has stain marks on the aluminium sill at the entrance main door. The appellants submit that this is surface damage or staining caused by defective or improperly tested aluminium. Tarion submits that as per section 3.18 of the Construction Performance Guideline (CPG) finishes on exterior hardware trims may discolour. Tarion submits that there is no defect in workmanship or materials. The appellants have not provided any objective evidence in support of their claim except for their “opinion” articulated above that there is a deficiency in the aluminium sheet metal. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

97Item #2 -The appellants submit that there are stain marks in the aluminium sill at the patio door. The appellants submit that this is surface damage or staining caused by defective or improperly tested aluminium. Tarion submits that as per section 3.18 of the Construction Performance Guideline finishes on exterior hardware trims may discolour. Tarion submits that there is no defect in workmanship or materials. The appellants have not provided any evidence in support of their claim except for their opinion articulated above that there is a deficiency in the aluminium sheet metal. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

98Item #3 - Caulking at windows and exterior doors is falling apart and causing leaks, air infiltration and pest infiltration including insects. Tarion submitted that the appellants confirmed to Tarion that no water leakage or air penetration had been observed on the interior of the home in these areas. The appellants now submit that the joint width between the window frames and adjacent wall surfaces exceeds typical tolerances. They did not provide any objective evidence of this other than their own opinion and that of Aum which simply states that gaps were observed and may allow air and water intrusion which may damage the inside frame. With respect to the entrance door to the garage the appellants submit that a continuous gap of more than one inch exists between the door and the frame and that this gap has led to confirmed water intrusion as validated by a water test. The appellants have not submitted a copy of the water test, nor have they submitted objective evidence of confirmed water intrusion. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

99Item #4 Garage- Rear side entrance door has water leaks. The appellants submit that the rear entrance door to the garage is improperly installed and exhibits multiple deficiencies. The appellants submitted a report of AUM dated August 22, 2025, which stated that the door form the garage to backyard/side entrance main door was observed not installed properly. The door is not fitting properly in the door frame when in a closed position. AUM observed a significant gap between the door and frame seal and also observed a water intrusion from the outside through the gap. AUM also found that the door does not close and lock properly. Tarion submitted that they tested the function of the garage main door at the back of the garage and observed the door to close and latch securely. Tarion noted that the door does not sit flush with the weatherstripping on the latch side of the door. Tarion relied on Article 14.5 of the CPG which states that “garage doors are not required to be weather-stripped and may allow snow and water to enter the garage”. I accept the evidence of AUM that that there is a significant gap between the door frame seal, and I also accept AUM’s evidence that they observed a water intrusion from outside through the gap. The appellants have not submitted any independent evidence of the cost to remedy this item. They have however provided their “opinion” that it would cost $750.00 plus HST to remove and reinstall the door and frame. I find $750.00 plus HST to be reasonable and should resolve this item.

100Item #5 - Wires hanging in the basement and not secured properly. The appellants submit that several electrical wires in the basement have been left hanging loosely and are not secured to the structure as required by standard installation practices and may pose safety risks. The appellants have not provided any expert evidence that this is a breach of the year-end warranty. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

101Item #5 (sic) - Main and upper floors. The appellants submit that there are two different colours and finish in hardwood floorboards. The appellants submit that the inconsistency clearly indicates that boards of different finishes and possibly different grades were mixed during installation, resulting in a patchy, unprofessional appearance that severely affects the home’s interior aesthetics. Tarion submits that Section 12.23 of the CPG notes “wood is a natural product and variation in colour and grain pattern from one piece of flooring to another is normal”. Tarion submits that there is no defect in workmanship or materials. The appellants have presented no evidence in support of their submissions other than their own opinion. The appellants have submitted two photographs they say show that two different finish types have been used in the wood floor installation. It was not readily apparent to me from the photographs that two different finish types were used. The appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities that there is a defect in material or workmanship of the floor that constitutes a breach of warranty under the Act.

102Item #6- Master ensuite tub is loosely installed, shaking while walking beside it. The appellants submit that this can lead to premature wear on plumbing connections, potential leaks or damage to flooring or finishes and safety concerns due to instability. The appellants submitted a report from AUM which states that the standard tub in the master bedroom was observed to be loose from the base. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that this can lead to premature wear on plumbing connections, potential leaks or damage to flooring or finishes and safety concerns due to instability. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

103Item #9 - Main floor inadequate airflow distribution from HVAC system. The appellants submit that the main floor is receiving significantly less airflow from the furnace compared to the basement. This imbalance is affecting the temperature regulation and comfort levels throughout the home. Tarion obtained a Furnace Inspection Report from Gio-Tech Climate Solutions dated January 15, 2024. Gio-Tech conducted an overall assessment of the furnaces in the home. After conducting an airflow test on all the registers throughout the home it found that the airflow delivered throughout the home from both furnaces was as per design specifications. The appellants have not submitted any evidence in support of their allegation with respect to airflow other than their opinion. As such they have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

104Item #12 – Den heating outlet is built too far from the wall. The appellants submit that the heating vent has been installed too far from the wall placing it unusually close to the typical furniture layout. As a result, the vent is frequently obstructed by a chair restricting airflow. They further submit that proper placement of HVAC floor vents should consider both functionality and proper furniture arrangement. Tarion submits that there is no set minimum or maximum distance in the Building Code or CPG for placement of a heating outlet in relation to a wall. The appellants have not produced any evidence in support of their submission other than their opinion that HVAC floor vents should consider both functionality and proper furniture arrangement. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

105Item #13 Spice Kitchen - Hollow area left uncovered beside cabinets. The appellants submit that these unfinished areas are highly unusual in cabinetry installation and reflect incomplete workmanship. The appellants have submitted no evidence other than their opinion that the unfinished areas reflect incomplete workmanship. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

106Item #17 Stairs squeak in steps. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that the squeak in the steps is a defect or as a result of poor workmanship simply, their opinion that this type of squeaking is a common result or poor fastening or joint instability and may lead to further deterioration of the staircase structure over time. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

107Item #21 Stairs: Stain is losing colour (fading unnaturally). The appellants submitted that the stairs appeared to lack a protective varnish or topcoat which is critical to preserving both the appearance and durability of the stain. They submit their opinion that proper stair finishing involves both sanding and sealing to protect against wear UV exposure and foot traffic. They further submit that this issue compromises the aesthetic appeal of the staircase and will continue to deteriorate if left unaddressed. Tarion submits that the appellants submissions offer no evidence or support for their allegation of a defect. I agree with Tarion that the appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

108Item #22 Family Room -Shoe mould and baseboard not straight. The appellants submit that this issue represents substandard workmanship. Tarion submitted that a bulge at the bottom of the wall below the HVAC return grill had a difference of approximately 10mm from the wall. Tarion submitted that section 3.2 of the CPG states “On the interior of a home where bowed framing causes local distortion, the variation shall not be more than 15mm from the specified plane”. Tarion submits that there is no defect in workmanship or materials. The appellants dd not provide any evidence other than their own “opinion” that this represents substandard workmanship. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

109Item #24- Main hallway stairwell light switch is missing on main hallway. The appellants submit that the switch that controls the lighting for the stairwell between the main floor and the second floor is missing from the main floor hallway. Currently users have to go to the second floor to turn on the stairwell light before using the stairs from the main floor – which they submit, results in a dangerous condition. They submit that this omission appears to be a design oversight or deviation from standard electrical planning. The appellants did not submit any evidence other than their own opinion that this represents a defect in workmanship or materials. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

110Item #27 - Dining room return air inlet is missing. The appellants submit their own “opinion” that according to “HVAC best practices and general building standards a home of this size and layout requires a minimum of 3 to 4 strategically placed return air inlets on the ground floor to ensure proper airflow”. The appellants did not submit any evidence in support of their opinion. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

111Item #28 - Master bedroom wood floorboard misaligned. The appellants submit that the floor is not aligned with the wall. The appellants submit that when combined with #5 on the year end warranty form these problems reflect a broader issue or poor workmanship and lack of quality control in the flooring installation. The appellants did not submit any evidence other than their own opinion that this represents a defect in workmanship or materials. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

112Item #33 - All bedroom’s ice buildup on glass windows. This item was withdrawn by the appellants in their written submissions.

113Item #35 loft - Trim and baseboard at balcony door not properly finished. The appellants submitted their “opinion” that the trim and baseboard around the balcony door in the loft have been poorly finished. They submit that this is not only a cosmetic issue but also a functional and structural concern as water infiltration can lead to long term damage. They submitted a picture of what purports to be the loft balcony door sill with what they allege to be visible signs of moisture due to a poorly finished door trim and inadequate sealing at the sill interface. Tarion submitted that they inspected the area and that it was indicated to Tarion that snow removal was not performed at that location. Tarion characterised the damage as resulting from improper maintenance which it excluded from warranty coverage under s. 13(2)(f) of the ONHWPA. The appellants have not submitted any evidence to persuade me that there is a defect or poor workmanship other than their own opinion. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

114Item #39 Loft Bedroom - Washroom side wall not built straight. The appellants submit that the side wall of the washroom in the loft bedroom is visibly uneven and wavy and that walls in a newly constructed home are expected to be straight and uniformly finished. The appellants admit that it is within technical standards but submit that the visual impact of the unevenness is substantial and clearly reflects substandard workmanship. They offer no evidence in support of their submission. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

115Item #40 Loft Bedroom -. Stucco is chipped off at loft window and not fixed. Tarion submits that this was repaired in a workmanlike manner. The appellants have offered no objective evidence in support of this item being unrepaired and as such have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

116Item #41 Loft Bedroom - Wood floorboard misaligned. The appellants have not offered any evidence in support of this item except to submit that it significantly impacts the visual aesthetics and alignment of the space. The appellants have not met their burden of proof on this submission. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

117Item #46- Upper floor bedroom heating and cooling not adequate. Tarion obtained a report from Element Forensic Engineering dated March 11, 2024. The report concluded that the installed furnace servicing the second and third levels exceeded the requirements of the OBC. I accept the report of Element Forensic Engineering. The appellants have not submitted any alternative evidence and as such, the appellants have not met their burden of proof on this submission. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

118Item #47 Upper floor thermostat in wrong location. The appellants did not submit any independent opinion that the thermostat was in the wrong location other than to allege that it is incorrectly located. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

119Item #50 & 51 Basement- No extra breaker available in electric panel for any future use. The appellants submitted that the current electrical panel in the basement has no available breaker slots for future expansion. They submit that “industry standard practice is to include a few spare breaker slots in the main panel to allow for future electrical needs”. They do not provide any authority for their submission. Tarion submitted a report from Rango Electric dated October 11, 2022, that confirms that the vendor is not required to leave additional breakers for future use and that it is the homeowner’s responsibility to provide additional breakers for future use. I am left with the report of Rango Electric, that the vendor is not required to leave extra breakers which, is unchallenged other than by the “opinion” of the appellants. I accept the unchallenged evidence of Rango Electric. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

120Item #53 - Outside Tyvek house wrap is not installed as per guidelines. The appellants submit that the Tyvek house wrap has been installed improperly and not in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation guidelines or acceptable construction practices. The appellants have not produced any expert evidence of improper installation of Tyvek. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

121Item #60 - Outside stones chipped off in front elevation. The appellants submit that a section of the exterior stonework on the front elevation has visible chipping and surface damage which detracts from the home’s appearance and may compromise the long-term durability and weather resistance of the masonry surface if left unaddressed. The appellants have submitted no evidence other than their opinion as to the effect of the chipping on the stone. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

122Item #61 Outside loose asphalt shingle on garage roof. The appellants submit that a previous repair attempt was made but the shingles remain improperly secured. Tarion submits that it completed a conciliation inspection of this item on August 28,2023 and found the shingles to be installed in a workmanlike manner without defect. The appellants submitted a report of AUM dated August 22, 2025, titled Inspection of defects for 7-year warranty. Tarion submits that the appellants submissions provide no evidence of a shingle defect during the first-year warranty period. I agree with Tarion. The report of AUM is dated August 22, 2025, and does not provide proof of a defect during the first-year warranty period given that the date of the report. I do not find a breach of warranty.

123Item #62 - Outside exposed concrete surfaces. The appellants submit that sections of the exterior concrete remain exposed and have not been parged. They further submit that exposed concrete surfaces are more susceptible to weathering, cracking and water infiltration over time. The appellants have not submitted any evidence in support of their opinion that these surfaces need to be parged. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

124Item #66- Garage Entrance: Garage to house door, drop in floor level at entry is a safety hazard. The appellants submit that the drop is directly on the other side of the door and that when entering the house, they must fully open the door otherwise they risk stepping into the drop area. The appellants have not submitted any evidence to corroborate their opinion that this is a safety hazard. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

125Item#70- Outside: The scupper at entrance porch is broken and has a wide gap with the wall on its sides. The appellants submit that this condition may allow water to bypass the intended drainage path potentially leading to water infiltration, damage to exterior finishes or deterioration of the wall assembly over time. The appellants have not submitted any evidence to corroborate their opinion that this condition may lead to water infiltration. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

126Item #71- Outside rainwater leader from main roof is left on garage truss causing water to splash in front of garage door. The appellants submit that this condition increases the risk of moisture intrusion and long-term water damage to building components. The appellants have not submitted any evidence to support their opinion that this condition may lead to moisture intrusion. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

127Item #72 - Den latch in den door is very high approximately 7ft 9in so it is not reachable to operate. The appellants submit that standard practice and “code” intent require that latches, handles and other operable door hardware be installed at height readily accessible to all users. They refer to OBC 9.7.5.1 (Door Hardware Location), “operable parts of doors must be installed at heights that are accessible and within reach range for normal use”. The appellants submitted a report from AUM that the height of the door lock should be reachable to open or close the door, which is not the case. The appellants submitted pictures showing the latch to be very high up on the door. I find this to be a breach of warranty. The appellants submit an “estimated cost of remediation” of $175.00 plus HST. I find $175.00 plus H.S.T to be reasonable and should resolve this item.

128Item #73 Master bedroom electrical outlet plugs very far from each other. The appellants submit that the electrical outlet receptacles in the master bedroom are too far apart. The appellants have not submitted any objective evidence of a defect and as such have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

129Item #78 - Basement sharp edges of wood beams supporting stairs are a safety hazard. The appellants submit that the sharp edges create a direct risk of injury because the beams are easily contacted at head level. The appellants submit that the OBC requires a minimum headroom clearance of 6 ft 4 in for stairways and finished stairs. However, the appellants do not provide any objective evidence that the headroom clearance is below 6 ft 4 in. As such the appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

130Item #79 and 80 - Main hallway floor deficiency. The appellants have not submitted any independent evidence of a defect or poor workmanship other than their opinion that this is a clear workmanship failure and an incomplete repair of a previously reported deficiency. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

131Item #85 - Patio door and frame not finished. The appellants submit that the door and frame exhibit visible areas where the paint/finish has not been applied or is incomplete They submit that this lack of proper finishing exposes the frame and door material to weathering, moisture and potential premature deterioration. The appellants submissions do not provide any evidence of a defect or poor workmanship, simply their opinion. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find this to be a breach of warranty.

Appeal dated June 24, 2025

Claim Items from the 30-Day Warranty Form

132Item #148 - Bedroom 4 the washroom tiles are not cleaned, and grout is sticking all over the tiles. The appellants have not submitted any evidence in support of their claim that this is a defect. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

133Item #191 withdrawn by the appellants in their written submissions.

Claim Items from the Year-End Warranty Form

134Item #3 - Breakfast family room kitchen floor shakes while walking doesn’t seem structurally strong and safe. Tarion retained the services of Pinchin Ltd. to assess this item. As a result of a determination by Pinchin Tarion warranted these items. Because of the size of this claim Tarion (as required) has commenced a bidding process to value these repairs. This process is currently ongoing. Tarion has not made a decision on the compensation level for these claims and that decision is not before the LAT. As a result, I am unable to rule on this aspect of the claim.

135Item #45 - Loft Bedroom -: No adequate heating and ceiling in loft bedroom temperature is not reaching to the set temperature. Tarion compensated the appellants in the amount of $2,312.72 to resolve this claim and received a Full and Final Release dated March 11, 2025, signed by Balbir and Veena Lamba. Tarion submitted a copy of the Full and Final Release and Claim Resolution Schedule. Tarion submits that the appellants are estopped from seeking warranty coverage at the LAT for this item due to the signed Full and Final Release and settlement payment. The appellants made no submissions with respect to this claim. I agree with Tarion that this claim has been settled.

136Item #46 - Upper floor bedrooms heating and cooling not adequate. Tarion retained Gio-Tech climate Solutions to conduct a review of the heating and delivery system in the home. Gio-Tech found that the heating systems were working as per the manufacturer and heating design specifications including the supply of airflow throughout the home however, the loft bedroom was not heating more than 20.7 degrees Celsius. Tarion then retained Element Forensic Engineering (EFE) to determine if there were and defects impacting the loft’s ability to reach the required temperature of 22 degrees. EFE found that the installed furnace servicing the second and third levels exceeded the minimum requirements of the OBC and found no defect in the operation of the HVAC system. EFE did find that the insulation above the second and third level was inadequate. Tarion found this to be a defect in workmanship and materials and therefore a breach of warranty. Tarion compensated the appellants in the amount of $1,346.72 to resolve this claim and received a Full and Final Release dated March 11, 2025, signed by Balbir and Veena Lamba. Tarion submitted a copy of the Full and Final Release and Claim Resolution Schedule. Tarion submits that the appellants are estopped from seeking warranty coverage at the LAT for this item due to the signed Full and Final Release and settlement payment. The appellants made no submissions with respect to this claim. I agree with Tarion that this claim has been settled.

137Item #48 withdrawn by the appellants in their written submissions.

138Item #49- Basement furnace serving upper floors is small and very low capacity, hardly any air flow reaching to the loft due to long run of dark and low pressure of furnace fan. The appellants have not made any submission with respect to this item. Tarion relies upon the reports of Gio-Tech and EFE detailed under Item #46 above. I accept the evidence of Tarion on this item. The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

Claim Items from The Second-Year Warranty Form:

139Item #2 - Front elevation wall has wide crack in stone and brick, water penetrating through this crack. The appellants submit that the crack is compromising the integrity of the building envelope. They submit that water penetration may lead to structural deterioration, efflorescence, freeze thaw damage and potential mould or insulation degradation within the wall cavity if not properly addressed. The appellants have not provided any expert evidence other than their opinion that the crack is compromising the integrity of the building envelope The appellants have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

140Item #7- Loft bedroom not warming as per set temperature in thermostat and stay cold. This has already been dealt with under Item #45 of the year end warranty form.

141Item #8 - Thermostat and HRV switch are installed at incorrect location and installed incorrectly. This has already been dealt with above under item #47 of the year end warranty form.

142Item #10 - Weeping tile left open in foundation at rear wall and not connected to storm drain. The appellants submit that the Ontario Building Code, Division B-Part 9 (9.14.3.1 and 9.14.3.2) requires drainage tile around foundations to be connected to a suitable outlet such as a sump pit or storm drainage system. The appellants do not provide any expert evidence in support of their submissions, nor do they provide a copy of the relevant section of the building code. They have not met their burden of proof. I do not find a breach of warranty.

143Item #11 - Floor is sinking at kitchen island. No extra structural strengthening in floor structure below. Tarion retained the services of Pinchin Ltd. to assess this item. As a result of a determination by Pinchin Tarion warranted these items. Because of the size of this claim Tarion (as required) has commenced a bidding process to value these repairs. This process is currently ongoing. Tarion has not made a decision on the compensation level for these claims and that decision is not before the LAT. As a result, I am unable to rule on this aspect of the claim.

144Item #12 withdrawn by the appellants in their written submissions.

145Item #13 - Crack in front elevation wall. This is a repeat of Item #2 of the second-year form above.

146Item #15 - Base of wood columns in basement are not wrapped with separation membrane concrete directly in contact with wood. This is a repeat of Item #184 from the 30-day form above.

147Item#16 - Wood used for wood columns are not as per specified wood in codes. This item has been dealt with under item #181 from the 30-day form above,

148Item #17 - No caps on wood columns built. This item has been dealt with under item #181 from the 30-day form, above.

149Item #19 - Beams installed on wood columns are not cantered and all weight is transferring to just one wood stud of column. This item has been dealt with under item #181 from the 30- day form, above.

150Item #20 - Columns in basement are not installed as per structural drawing report. This item has been dealt with under item #181 above.

151Item #21 - Wood columns bases, embedded in concrete are exposed to moisture in the layer of gravel laid beneath basement floor concrete thickness. This item has been dealt with under items #184 and #185 from the 30-day form above.

ORDER:

152For the reasons set out above, I order Tarion to pay the appellants $668.00 plus HST for Item #4 under the 30-day warranty coverage, $575.00 plus HST for Item #12 under the 30-day warranty coverage, $150.00 plus HST for Item #145 under the 30 day warranty coverage and $175.00 plus HST for Item #72 under the year-end warranty coverage and $750.00 plus HST for Item #4 under the year - end warranty coverage.

153The balance of the appellant’s claims are dismissed.

Kevin Kovalchuk Vice-Chair