Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17954/NHCLA
An appeal from an Administrative Penalty Order under section 76 of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.33. Sched. 1
Between:
2736003 Ontario Inc.
Appellant
and
Registrar, Home Construction Regulatory Authority
Respondent
MOTION DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Gurleen Thethi
For the Appellant: No submissions received For the Respondent: Madhavi Gupta, Counsel; Alex Alton, Counsel
Heard: In Writing
OVERVIEW
1On October 27, 2025, the Registrar, Home Construction Regulatory Authority (the “Registrar”) issued an Administrative Penalty Order (“APO”) to 2736003 Ontario Inc. (the “appellant”) pursuant to s. 76 under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017, S.O. 2017. C. 33, Sched. 1 (the “Act”). The appellant appeals the APO to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 77(2) of the Act.
2The Registrar brings this motion to determine the procedure for this appeal. According to the Registrar, the appeal should be determined based on the record.
3The motion proceeded in writing with the Registrar making written submissions. The appellant did not make any written submissions.
ISSUES
4The issue in dispute is:
a. Is the “hearing” to be held under s. 77(4) of the Act pursuant to an appeal filed under s. 77(2) to be held as an appeal on the record or as a de novo hearing?
RESULT
5The appeal shall proceed as an appeal on the record.
ANALYSIS
6Where a statute allows an appeal from one administrative decision maker to another, determining the appropriate procedure and standard of review for that appeal is an exercise of statutory interpretation. The Tribunal must read the words of the Act in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of the legislature: See Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC).
7In Ottawa Police Services v. Diafwila, 2016 ONCA 627, the Court of Appeal considered this issue in the context of the Police Services Act. That case involved the proper standard of review to be applied by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (“OCPC”) in an appeal from a first instance decision made by the Chief of Police’s delegate. In making its determination, the Court of Appeal stated that:
…the standard of review that it [the OCPC] must apply is to be determined from the language of the enabling legislation: “[i]n considering the jurisdiction of tribunals, the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted a functional and structural approach by looking to the function which the legislature has asked the tribunal to perform and to the powers and processes it has furnished to it” (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Payne (2002), 2002 CanLII 39150 (ON SCDC), 219 D.L.R.(4th) 350 (Ont. Div. Ct.), at para. 18).
8In Huruglica v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 93, the Federal Court of Appeal held the following in determining the standard of review to be applied by the Refugee Appeal Division when reviewing decisions of the Refugee Protection Division:
…the determination of the role of a specialized administrative appeal body is purely and essentially a question of statutory interpretation, because the legislator can design any type of multi-level administrative framework to fit any particular context. An exercise of statutory interpretation requires an analysis of the words of the [statute] read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the [statute] and its object.
9The Registrar submits that the Act contemplates an appeal on the record, arguing that the APO regime contains its own first‑instance procedural safeguards, produces a complete evidentiary record, and does not authorize the Tribunal to substitute its opinion for that of the assessor.
The Statutory Scheme
10In accordance with Yarco Developments Inc. v. Home Construction Regulatory Authority (Registrar), 2024 ONSC 93 (“Yarco”), tribunals must interpret laws as remedial. Section 3(3) of the Act requires the Registrar to “comply with the principles of […] (a) maintaining a fair, safe and informed marketplace; and (b) promoting the protection of the public interest”. Yarco explains that the objective of the Act is consumer protection legislation aimed at enhancing consumer protection and strengthening the licensing regime.
11In Yarco, the Divisional Court also stated that through the Act, the Ontario legislature “has reaffirmed the need to protect consumers who purchase and live in new homes. An aspect of this protection is ensuring that home builders and vendors of new homes act honestly, with integrity, and according to the law.”
12APOs are a tool used by the Registrar to advance these principles. Section 76(4) identifies two purposes for imposing an APO: 1) ensuring compliance with the Act, the ONHWPA, the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017, applicable regulations, bylaws, and licence conditions, and 2) preventing a person from obtaining an economic benefit from non-compliance.
13The Act establishes a specific process for APOs. Under O. Reg. 573/22, the assessor must first issue a Notice of Intention to Issue an Administrative Penalty (“NOI”), provide the subject with information about the proposed APO, inform the subject of their right to provide a Request to Consider Additional Information (“RCAI”), and then consider that material before issuing an APO with written reasons. This process affords the subject a meaningful opportunity to participate and creates a structured evidentiary record before the matter ever reaches the Tribunal. Notably, subsection 76(13) of the Act states that the assessor is not required to hold a hearing or to afford a person an opportunity for a hearing before making an APO.
14The express denial of any hearing requirement in subsection 76(13) is an intentional feature of the statutory scheme. It confirms that the legislation intended APOs to be determined through a structured, paper‑based process rather than oral adjudication. The Act and regulation substitute a defined exchange of information and submissions for a hearing and assign the assessor responsibility for weighing evidence, making factual findings, and exercising discretion in the first instance.
15When reading ss. 76 and 77 together, they reflect a clear division of responsibilities: the assessor is the primary fact‑finder and the compliance decision‑maker based on the NOI and RCAI record, while the Tribunal’s role is to confirm, revoke, or vary the assessor’s order. Nothing in s. 77 authorizes the Tribunal to assume the assessor’s fact‑finding function or to receive new evidence as if no order had yet been made.
16Interpreting the s. 77(4) “hearing” as an appeal on the record gives proper effect to this scheme. It preserves the integrity and efficiency of the regulatory process, avoids transforming the Tribunal into a first‑instance decision‑maker, and recognizes that the appellant has already been afforded a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and submissions prior to the issuance of the APO. The Tribunal’s task on appeal is therefore to review the APO based on the established record.
17This interpretation is reinforced by contrast with other provisions of the Act, such as licensing actions under s. 43, where the Registrar must issue a Notice of Proposal and the affected party may request a Tribunal hearing before any decision is made. The fact that there is a pre‑decision before the Tribunal hearing right in the APO regime confirms that, for APOs, the legislation intended the Registrar, not the Tribunal, to be the first‑instance decision‑maker and that the Tribunal not hold a de novo hearing.
18The Registrar’s evidence confirms that this statutory process was followed in this case. The assessor issued the NOI, provided the required information, received and considered the appellant’s RCAI, and then issued a detailed APO setting out the factual findings, legal conclusions, and penalty rationale.
19The Act does not explicitly state whether an appeal from an APO is to proceed as an appeal on the record or as a de novo hearing. Determining the proper format therefore requires a contextual interpretation of s. 77 of the Act.
20Subsection 77(4) provides that, after a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, revoke, or vary an APO. That remedial language is not decisive. While it contains features commonly associated with appellate review, similar language also appears in provisions that contemplate de novo proceedings. The Tribunal’s powers under s. 77(4), viewed in isolation, do not clearly resolve the intended form of proceeding.
21Greater clarity emerges when s. 77 is read alongside other Tribunal provisions in the Act, including ss. 43, 64, and 67. Those provisions authorize a person to request a hearing before the Tribunal in response to a Notice of Proposal, before any final regulatory decision is made. In that context, if an appeal is requested, no order takes effect until the Tribunal makes its decision, which effectively means the Tribunal acts as the first‑instance decision‑maker.
22Section 77 operates differently. An APO is issued only after the assessor has completed the statutory NOI and RCAI process and rendered a final decision with written reasons. Matters come to the Tribunal under s. 77 by way of an “appeal” from that completed decision, not by a request for a hearing in response to a proposal. Although s. 77(4) refers to a “hearing,” that term is properly understood as describing the procedural mechanism by which the appeal is determined, not as conferring original fact‑finding jurisdiction on the Tribunal.
23This interpretation is consistent with the existence of a complete decision‑making record at the time of the appeal. In this case, the Registrar has filed the materials considered by the assessor, including the NOI, disclosure, the appellant’s RCAI, and detailed reasons addressing the factual findings, statutory breaches, and penalty imposed. Nothing in the statutory scheme or in the materials before the Tribunal suggests that additional evidence or credibility findings are required to conduct the appeal.
24The appellant filed no submissions on this issue and has not alleged that the record is incomplete, that procedural fairness was denied at the assessor stage, or that the appeal requires additional fact‑finding. In these circumstances, and having regard to the structure of the Act and the distinct role assigned to the Tribunal in APO matters, the more coherent interpretation is that an appeal under s. 77 proceeds as an appeal on the record, not as a de novo hearing.
CONCLUSION
25I find the appellant’s appeal to the Tribunal shall proceed as an appeal on the record of the Registrar’s decision.
ORDER
26The Tribunal Orders:
i. The appeal will proceed as an appeal on the record of the Registrar’s decision.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_______________________
Gurleen Thethi Member
Released: April 16, 2026