Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17621/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.

Between:

Christina Ditta

Appellant

and

Tarion Warranty Corporation

Respondent

and

Ninth and Main General Partner Inc.

Added Party

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Christina Ditta, Self-represented

Paul Ditta, Representative

For the Respondent:

Steve Williams, Warranty Services Representative

Ranisha Fernando, Counsel

For the Added Party:

Donie Aprile, Director of Warranty and Occupancies

Anindita Asaduzzaman, Counsel

Hearing Reporter:

Laila Butt

Heard by videoconference:

February 24, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Christina Ditta, the appellant, appeals from a decision letter issued by Tarion Warranty Corporation, the respondent, dated May 22, 2025 (the “DL”), in relation to claim item 1 of the appellant’s 30-day statutory warranty form (“30-day Form”).

2At the case conference for this matter on August 8, 2025, Ninth and Main General Partner Inc. (“Pemberton”) was added as a party to the proceeding. The added party operates under the brand “Pemberton” which describes itself as a developer and builder of condominium and townhome residential properties in the GTA.

ISSUES

3The issues to be determined are:

i. Whether claim item 1 is a breach of warranty;

ii. If so, whether the appellant suffered any monetary damages resulting from the breach of warranty; and

iii. If so, the amount of damages.

RESULT

4Claim item 1 is not a breach of warranty. The respondent is ordered to deny the claim.

ANALYSIS

Claim item 1 is not a breach of warranty

5I find that claim item 1 is not a breach of warranty. Although the operation of the clothes washer appears to be resulting in an occasional “thump” sound in the pipes inside the home, this occurrence is normal and not covered by statutory warranty.

6Under s. 13(1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 (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 material, is fit for habitation, and constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code.

7Section 14 of the Act sets out the basis for compensation for a homeowner when there is a breach of warranty under s. 13. Section 14(3) stipulates that, subject to the regulations, a homeowner is entitled to receive payment out of the Guarantee Fund (the “Fund”) for damages resulting from a breach of warranty.

The warranty claim

8The appellant took possession of her home, Unit 616, 11782 Ninth Line, Stouffville, on August 3, 2023.

9The appellant filed her 30-day Form with the respondent on September 13, 2023. Item 1 of the form is described on the form as “when washing machine is running you hear the pipes shaking in the master bedroom”.

10Section 4.2 of O. Reg. 892 (the “Regulation”) sets out the procedures for homeowners to make an “initial warranty claim” in relation to defects or deficiencies in the home that appear to fall below, or are contrary with, the builder’s warranty set out in s. 13(1) of the Act. For clarity, initial warranty claims are submitted on a 30-day statutory claim form.

11After a 30-day claim is submitted, the builder or vendor has 120 days to address the reported defects, a period referred to as the builder repair period. If the builder/vendor does not address the defect by the end of the builder repair period, the homeowner may, within 30 days following the end of that period, request conciliation of the claim by the respondent. If the owner requests conciliation, the builder/vendor has an additional 30 days following that request to address any items on the claim form that are covered under the warranty. If the defect(s) remain unresolved, the respondent schedules a conciliation inspection at the home, at which the builder/vendor would typically attend.

12The appellant requested conciliation of the outstanding items on her 30-day Form, including item #1, and Steve Williams, a warranty services representative of the respondent, attended the home on October 31, 2024, together with representatives of Pemberton. After the inspection, the respondent reported, in a Conciliation Assessment Report dated November 24, 2024 (“CAR”), that the sound of the pipes when the washing machine was running was “not consistent nor severe” and the “water system in the home is meeting performance standards”. The CAR referred to the section 6.8 of the Construction Performance Guidelines (“CPGs”) under the title “Water Hammer”, which states that “a sudden thump or bang of water supply pipes when a faucet or fixture is closed abruptly is normal and not covered by the statutory warranty”. For that reason, the CAR declared item #1 not warranted.

The defect – water hammer

13The appellant testified and referred me to a 5.7-minute video taken on July 31, 2025 in the master bedroom ensuite bathroom, that reveals a “thump” sound at about the 2-minute mark and again at the 4.4-minute mark. She testified that the video was taken when the washer was running and that the sound is caused by the opening and closing of the washer’s water valves as it proceeds through a wash cycle, i.e., when the valve automatically demands and shuts off water to the washer. She testified that this sound is most prominent in the master ensuite and a vibration can be felt at that location when the thump is heard. She testified that “you can sometimes see the bathroom mirror vibrate when it sounds.”

14The appellant testified that the thump sound can happen as many as 10 to 12 times during a wash cycle. A cycle can last between 15 to 45 minutes, depending on the setting, and she runs the washer 3 to 5 times per week.

15The appellant testified that between November 2023 and February 2024 representatives and construction trades personnel of Pemberton attended the home at least 8 times in efforts to address the thumping sound and in the course of their investigations, they opened exploratory holes in the interior walls near the toilet of the master bedroom ensuite bathroom, a closet near the laundry room, and they proposed to open the ceiling of the kitchen for the same purpose. The appellant did not agree to the exploratory opening in the kitchen ceiling and asked Pemberton to discontinue any attempts to correct the noise. Thereafter, she sought conciliation with the respondent.

16The appellant believes that the thumping noise in her water system is not compliant with the Ontario Building Code (“OBC”) and that the defect will lead to greater deterioration and failure of her water system over time. She submits that it is a breach of the builder warranty.

17Mr. Williams testified that the thump sound is referred to, in the construction industry, as “water hammer” and it occurs when a solenoid valve in an appliance such as a washer, opens and closes. During the conciliation inspection of October 31, 2024, Mr. Williams recorded a video of approximately 9 minutes at the same location as the appellant’s recording, while the washer was running, which revealed one thump noise at the 17-second mark of the video.

18Donie Aprile, the director of warranty and occupancies for Pemberton, testified that the “thump” sound is more pronounced at the master ensuite, even though it is located at the opposite side of the home from the washer, because that is where the main water line comes into the home.

19Mr. Aprile testified that water hammer occurs from the water in the pipe suddenly stopping when a valve closes. He explained, “because water has weight, the sudden stopping can cause movement which, in turn, can generate sound and vibration.”

20I am not persuaded by the appellant’s concerns over the potential future consequences of the water hammer because, by their nature, such concerns are speculative. The builder statutory warranty, as set out in s. 13 of the Act, applies only to “existing” defects and deficiencies.

21The parties do not dispute that the water hammer is occurring and that it is the washing machine’s operation that is causing it. Despite attempts by the builder to rectify the issue, it persists. The key question is whether the water hammer that is occurring in the appellant’s home rises to the level of a breach of the builder’s warranty.

Is water hammer a common element defect?

22Referring to Exhibit 1, a summary of water hammer filed by the appellant titled, “Formal Notice of Common-Element Plumbing Deficiency”, dated January 26, 2026, the appellant testified that she believes water hammer in the home is a common element defect because it is occurring behind the walls.

23Mr. Williams testified that any claims for defects or deficiencies in the common elements of a condominium building would be covered by a different warranty - condominium common elements. He testified that Tarion did not investigate this claim as a “common element” claim item and had no information on any common element defects in the building. During the respondent’s re-direct to Mr. Williams, to a question of who is responsible to initiate warranty claims for common element defects, Mr. Willians testified that the condominium corporation would make these claims.

24I am not persuaded by the appellant’s references to the water hammer being a common element defect. I accept that one might logically think of the plumbing inside the walls being a “common element”, but I am persuaded by the respondent’s evidence that defects in common elements of a condominium are separate and distinct from the warranty in this matter. The administrative requirements for condominium common elements warranty claims are set out in sections 5.2, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 of the Regulation. As noted above, the appellant’s 30-day warranty claim is administered under s. 4.2.

What is an acceptable or normal standard for water hammer in a new home?

25I find that the water hammer that is occurring in the appellant’s home is normal.

26The appellant submits that s. 7.6.1.14 of the OBC identifies water hammer as a defect and it follows, therefore, that the persistent water hammer in her home is contrary to the OBC and should be warranted. I take notice that s. 7.6.1.14 of the OBC states that, “Provision shall be made to protect the water distribution system from the adverse effects of water hammer”.

27Mr. Williams testified that s. 7.6.1.14 refers to design requirements for water systems, in that the system design should have elements which protect it from the adverse effects of water hammer. He testified that this provision does not require an absence of water hammer.

28Mr. Williams referred me to s. 6.8 of the CPGs which describes the acceptable performance/condition for noisy pipes, or water hammer. Section 6.8 notes the same requirement as s. 7.6.1.14 of the OBC, in that “water pipes shall be installed to minimize the effects of water hammer and in accordance with the Building Code.”

29I am not persuaded by the appellant’s suggestion that the existence of water hammer is a breach of the OBC because, as the respondent identified, s. 7.6.1.14 of the OBC relates to ensuring the “design” of plumbing systems mitigate the adverse effects of water hammer. It does not suggest that the existence of water hammer, in its own right, constitutes a defect.

30I take notice that s. 6.8 of the CPGs remark that “repetitive hammering of water supply pipes during normal operation may indicate a problem and should be investigated”. Conversely, “a sudden thump or bang of water supply pipes when a faucet or fixture is closed abruptly is normal and not covered by statutory warranty”. It is evident that the condition in the appellant’s home is the latter, not the former.

31Although the CPGs are not law or regulation, they were prepared in consultation with various industry volunteers, Tarion employees and the general public and are intended to complement the OBC and any applicable guidelines or standards produced by industry associations. They serve to inform how the respondent will decide disputes between homeowners and builders about defects in workmanship or materials.

32I assign significant weight to the CPGs because they provide a basis by which a defect, deficiency or condition can be measured against an objective, industry-based standard that aligns with the OBC. It can also be a reference point for the scope of work that would be required to repair or address deficiencies in material or workmanship.

33I therefore find the standard for a water hammer defect or occurrence in a home is as defined in s. 6.8 of the CPGs.

Is the water hammer in the appellant’s home a warrantable defect?

34I find the water hammer in the appellant’s home is not a breach of warranty.

35The appellant testified and provided video evidence of the water hammer which can best be described as occurring occasionally and only when the washer is in operation. I heard no evidence that the water hammer resembled the more problematic condition described in s. 6.8 of the CPGs; that of repetitive hammering of water supply pipes during normal operation.

36I find it is more likely than not, that the water hammer occurring in the appellant’s home is of the “normal” condition described in s. 6.8. By that standard, an occasional thump or bang heard as water fixtures or faucets close abruptly, as the evidence reveals is the case in the appellant’s home, is normal and not covered by statutory warranty.

37I therefore find that claim item 1 on the 30-day form is not a breach of warranty.

Damages resulting from a breach of warranty

38As I have found that claim item 1 is not a breach of warranty, the issue of monetary damages arising from a breach of warranty is moot.

Conclusion

39I find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant has not demonstrated that claim item 1 is a breach of warranty. As there is no breach of warranty, there is no basis for a claim of damages against the Guarantee Fund.

ORDER

40I order the following:

i. Pursuant to s. 14(19) of the Act, I direct the respondent deny claim item 1 on the appellant’s 30-day claim form.