RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Bruce Stanton, Adjudicator
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
17123/ONHWPA
Case Name:
Mary Meredith v. Tarion Warranty Corporation
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant:
Mary Meredith, self-represented
For the Respondent:
Amanda Cutinha, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On February 5, 2026, the appellant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated January 2, 2026 (“decision”).
2In the decision, the Tribunal found the appellant was not entitled to compensation from the Guarantee Fund, under the respondent’s financial loss warranty. This was because she did not establish that she had a cause of action against the builder for damages arising from the builder’s failure to substantially perform the contract. Establishing a cause of action against a builder is one of four criteria a homeowner must satisfy to be entitled to compensation under the financial loss warranty. The Tribunal found that appellant met the threshold in the other three criteria, but not with respect to cause of action.
3The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; or
c) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
4In her request for reconsideration, the appellant identifies Rule 18.2(c) as a basis for the reconsideration request.
5The appellant submits that “major issues” were not addressed in the hearing and that parts of the information and documentation she submitted for the hearing were not considered. She submits that only the documents that favoured the builder’s position in her dispute were addressed. She submits the outcome of the hearing results in the builder being able to retain $76,970.25 for work it did not perform.
6Although the appellant identified only the ground for reconsideration in Rule 18.2(c) on the Request for Reconsideration Request Form, her submissions indicate that she believes the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness by not considering some of the evidence she presented or filed for the hearing, and the Tribunal made an error of fact such that it would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. I find the appellant’s reconsideration request cites all three of the grounds for reconsideration in Rules 18.2(a), 18.2(b) and 18.2(c).
7The respondent made submissions on the appellant’s allegation that some facts and documents were not addressed, and on allegations that the Tribunal made errors of fact or law. It submits that just because the appellant disagrees with the decision does not mean the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, or that there has been a material breach of procedural fairness, or that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact that would likely have led to a different result.
8The appellant seeks a cancellation of the decision. I take notice that she does not expressly request a rehearing of the matter, although the cancellation of the decision suggests that she anticipates that if the Tribunal orders the decision cancelled, the matter should be reheard.
RESULT
9I am satisfied that a ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 has been met. The reconsideration request is granted. The decision of January 2, 2026 is cancelled. The Tribunal will schedule a rehearing of the matter.
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
10When the appellant filed her request for reconsideration with the Tribunal she neglected to send a copy of the request to the respondent. The respondent noted the appellant’s omission in its written submissions.
11The Tribunal received the appellant’s request for reconsideration on February 4, 2026. The Tribunal issued the Reconsideration Order to the parties on February 11, 2026. Minutes after the Reconsideration Order was sent, the Tribunal issued the respondent a copy of the appellant’s original reconsideration request.
12The respondent filed its response in accordance with the Reconsideration Order noting the appellant’s service omission, but it did not seek any remedy for the omission.
13I find little to no prejudice to the respondent for the 7-day delay in receiving a copy of the appellant’s request because 3 weeks remained after February 11, 2026, to the response due date of March 4, 2026. I note the respondent filed its response on February 18, 2026.
ANALYSIS
14The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, or with the weight assigned to the evidence. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
Rule 18.2(b) – Did the Tribunal make an error of law or fact such that it would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made?
15I find the appellant has established a ground for reconsideration because the Tribunal made an error of fact that would likely have led to different result, had the error not been made.
The error of fact
16The appellant submits that the blueprints that are integral to the contract she had with the builder clearly show only 2 steps to enter the main floor of her home and the foundation (basement) wall on the entrance side backfilled to a height that facilitates the 2-step, grade-level main entrance. She submits that the building does not meet that specification and that is why she terminated the contract. Due to mobility constraints, she specified a grade-level main entrance.
17The respondent submits the Tribunal correctly found, at paragraph 47 of the decision, that limited weight should be assigned the appellant’s and Ellen Chambers’ (a friend of the appellant’s) testimony, that the appellant wanted a home with main floor at ground level, because the contract and blueprints do not capture this information. I disagree. It appears that the blueprints do capture this expectation.
18In her written submissions filed with the reconsideration request, at page 23, the appellant directed me to the contract proposal between herself and the builder, Lex Construction, dated December 17, 2021, which notes the construction of the building was to be based on the blueprints dated December 17, 2021. At pages 7 and 8 of her reconsideration submissions, the appellant provides a copy of what appears to be excerpts of the blueprints referred to in the contract proposal.
19Page 7 is an undated “elevation” drawing of the building showing front, back and right side. Page 8 is a copy of drawing 3 of 3, dated Dec. 2021, in which the top left corner shows an elevation drawing of the left side of the building and the remainder of the page reveals a sectional drawing of one side of the building from foundation to rooftop.
20I accept that the contract proposal dated December 17, 2021 and pages 7 and 8 of the appellant’s documents, the excerpts of the blueprints, constitute the part of the contract that is at the centre of this dispute between the builder and the appellant. I reach this conclusion because the respondent gave no indication in its submissions that these copies of the blueprints and contract differ from what was presented in evidence at the hearing.
21At paragraph 46 of the decision, the Tribunal found that the “as constructed” height of the foundation was within the range specified in the blueprints. I take notice that the only part of the blueprints that specify the backfill height range is the sectional drawing, which states that the backfill height (height of backfill against an exterior foundation wall) should be a minimum of 4’6” measured from the bottom of the foundation, up to a maximum of 7’10”. This appears to be the basis for the Tribunal concluding that the “as constructed” building conforms with the blueprints.
22At paragraph 47, the Tribunal accepted that the “contract and blueprints” did not capture the “information” that the appellant wanted a home with the main floor at (i.e., accessible from) ground level. On a plain reading of this statement, I surmise that the Tribunal concluded that the blueprints did not specify “grade-level” access to the main entrance.
23The Tribunal found, at paragraph 48, that the testimony of Taryn Morris, the Tarion representative, Gregg Gigliotti, the municipal building inspector, and Darryl Lex, the builder, were all consistent in stating that the home’s foundation depth and main floor elevation were built within the range specified on the blueprints.
24The decision appears to rely on the conformity of the “as constructed” building to the backfill heights specified in the sectional drawing. There is no disagreement that the “as constructed” building meets the range of 4’6” to 7’10” of backfill height.
25Photos of the “as constructed” building supplied by the appellant show that the grade level against the foundation on all sides is well below the main floor, a fact that is noted at paragraph 43 of the decision where Mr. Gigliotti testified to the comments on the building inspection report of June 7, 2022, that, the “building [is] constructed higher out of the ground than what the approved drawings show, roughly 2’6” to 3’ higher”.
26While it appears that the backfill height conforms to the range set out in the sectional drawing on page 8, the sectional drawing is not the only part of the blueprints that informs the contract.
27The blueprints include the elevation drawings which appear to accurately capture the appellant’s expectation that she would be getting a building with only 2 steps up from grade to access the main floor.
28The elevation drawings clearly show the height of grade (backfill) against the entrance-side foundation wall as only slightly below the main floor entrance level (necessitating only 2 steps to enter the main floor from grade). On the other side, the side with basement windows for egress, the height of grade against the foundation wall is lower. The entrance side of the “as constructed” home appears to be considerably different than what the elevation drawings portray.
29I find this inconsistency is an error of fact in the Tribunal’s decision that the blueprints do not capture the appellant’s expectation that the entrance to her building would be, save two steps, at grade level. The elevation drawings, which form part of the blueprints, appear to capture the appellant’s expectation accurately.
Would the error of fact have led to a different result if the error had not been made?
30I find that this error is such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
31As noted above, the Tribunal found, at paragraph 46 of the decision, that the builder constructed the height of the foundation to the specifications set out in the blueprints and contract.
32Because the Tribunal found that the builder upheld its obligations in the contract, regarding the height of the foundation (in particular, the height of the grade levels against the exterior of the foundation walls), the appellant’s termination of the contract, without grounds, resulted in the Tribunal finding that the appellant had no cause of action against the builder. This conclusion resulted in the Tribunal ordering that the appellant’s claim under the financial loss warranty be denied.
33Had the Tribunal considered the elevation drawings as being integral to the contract, it likely would have concluded that the blueprints captured the appellant’s expectation of having grade-level access to the main floor of her home, which likely would have led to a different outcome. Accordingly, I find that the error is such that it likely would have changed the outcome of the decision.
34Accordingly, I am satisfied that the appellant has established grounds for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 18.2(b).
35As I have found that the appellant has established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b), it is not necessary to analyze the other grounds for reconsideration argued by the appellant. The appellant need only satisfy one of the three grounds for reconsideration in Rule 18.2 for the Tribunal to grant her request.
Rule 18.4 – outcome of reconsideration
36Since the appellant has established a ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, I will now turn to the outcome of the reconsideration under Rule 18.4. Upon reconsidering a decision under Rule 18.4, the Tribunal may:
a) Dismiss the request, or
b) After providing responding parties an opportunity to make submissions:
i. Confirm, vary, or cancel the decision or order; or
ii. Order a rehearing on all or part of the matter.
37I am cancelling the decision and ordering a rehearing by videoconference by a different adjudicator. I find that a rehearing by way of videoconference is appropriate to allow the parties to present their evidence to the Tribunal.
38Access to technology for the purposes of fully participating in the tribunal process is available through Tribunals Ontario’s Supports and services. If required, contact the Tribunal for information regarding Tribunals Ontario’s accommodation policies and services.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
39The appellant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
40The decision dated January 2, 2026, is cancelled pursuant to Rule 18.4(b)(i).
41The matter will proceed to a rehearing by way of 2-day videoconference by a different adjudicator on a date(s) to be set by the Tribunal.
42The parties shall exchange, and file a copy with the Tribunal, copies of the documentary evidence (i.e., document brief) and authority briefs they plan to rely on at the hearing, and a list of the witnesses they intend to call, no later than 15 calendar days after the release of this decision. If hard-copy documents are to be relied upon, they must post-marked to the recipients no later than 15 calendar days after the release of this decision.
43If the parties settle, the appellant shall immediately advise the Tribunal.
44I am not seized of this matter.
Bruce Stanton
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: April 15, 2026