Segal v. Tarion Warranty Corporation, 2026 CanLII 37012

Citation: Segal v. Tarion Warranty Corporation, 2026 ONLAT 17315/ONHWPA

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17315/ONHWPA

Appeal from a decision of Tarion Warranty Corporation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 to disallow a claim.

Between:

Linda Segal

Appellant

And

Tarion Warranty Corporation

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dagmara Szczudlo, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellants:

Linda Segal, Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Daniela T. Corapi, Counsel

Heard by way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Linda Segal (the "appellant") appeals from a decision letter dated June 18, 2025 (the “Decision Letter”) issued by Tarion Warranty Corporation (the “respondent” or “Tarion”) denying the appellant’s claim for warranty coverage of items listed on her Year-End Form under s. 14(3) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 (the “Act”).

2The respondent accepted that there were several defects in workmanship and materials during the construction of the appellant’s home and offered the appellant $7,400.00 to resolve the breach of warranty in the Decision Letter. The appellant did not accept the offer and filed a notice of appeal (“NOA”) with the Licence Appeal Tribunal dated September 8, 2025.

3This matter proceeded to a written hearing on April 10, 2026. The appellant did not serve, nor file submissions, evidence, and authorities as required by the Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) released by the Tribunal on December 9, 2025.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

4The issues in dispute are:

i. Is the appellant entitled to payment out of the guarantee fund for damages resulting from breaches of a warranty under the Act with respect to items listed in the Notice of Appeal?

ii. If so, what is the amount of payment the appellant is entitled to?

RESULT

5After considering the submissions and evidence, I find that the appellant is entitled to a $7,400.00 payment out of the guarantee fund as proposed by the respondent in the Decision Letter. I direct Tarion to pay that amount to the appellant, pursuant to s. 14(19) of the Act.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT A HEARING

6For the reasons that follow, the respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing is denied.

7Rule 3.4 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“the Rules”) permits the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal without a hearing and lists grounds to evaluate the request. Rule 3.5 requires that the Tribunal gives the parties notice of its intention to dismiss and informs the parties of their right to make written submissions to the Tribunal regarding the notice.

8The respondent filed a written motion to dismiss on March 30, 2026 and submits that the appellant did not engage in the hearing process, did not meet the required procedural timelines and compromised procedural fairness. This motion was preceded by an oral motion at the November 26, 2025 case conference and a letter dated March 18, 2026 in which the respondent also requested that the Tribunal dismiss this appeal.

9The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the motion and notified the parties that the motion will be heard at the written hearing. The appellant was requested to file its responding submissions to the motion by no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 7, 2026.

10Responding submissions from the appellant were not received by the Tribunal prior to the written motion hearing deadline. Instead, on April 7, 2026, the appellant requested a hearing adjournment via Xpresspost™. The letter did not provide specific submissions on the respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

11I agree that the appellant’s failure to file materials for the hearing as per the CCRO are a challenge; however, I am not persuaded that the appellant abandoned the appeal as required by Rule 3.4(d). While she did not file submissions relevant to the merits of her warranty claim or to the respondent’s motion to dismiss her appeal without a hearing, I find that the appellant requesting the adjournment of the hearing indicates she has not abandoned it. As a result, I decline to dismiss the appeal without a hearing and will address the adjournment request next.

REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT DENIED

12The appellant’s request for an adjournment is denied. As per the Notice of Written Hearing sent by the Tribunal on December 10, 2025, the hearing scheduled to start on April 10, 2026 will proceed.

13The appellant requested an adjournment via letter received by the Tribunal on April 7, 2026. She submitted that she has been ill for several months, is taking medication which impacts her ability to function and requested that the written hearing be changed to another date.

14I was not provided with any medical information regarding appellant’s condition nor the nature of her disability beyond what was stated in her letter. As of April 10, 2026, the Tribunal has not received an accommodation request and I am unclear what type of accommodations are required by the appellant because of her medical condition, nor when her condition is expected to improve.

15A party is not entitled to an adjournment as of right but must establish that the proposed adjournment is appropriate: Flamboro Downs Holdings, Ltd. v Teamsters Local 879, 1979 CanLII 1669 (Ont. Div Ct). The Tribunal may consider the factors set out in Rule 16.3 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 in making that determination.

16When considering an adjournment request, the Tribunal considers, amongst other factors: the timeliness of the request and whether the parties have been given the opportunity to canvass their availability; the specific reasons for being unable to proceed on the scheduled date; the desirability of having the matter decided; and the length of the requested adjournment. See: Rule 16.3 and The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Igbinosun, 2009 ONCA 484, at para. 37.

17I deny the appellant’s adjournment request for the following reasons:

a) Requirements outlined in Rule 16.1 were not followed in submitting the adjournment request;

b) The appeal was received by the Tribunal on September 11, 2025 and the file is 211 days old as of April 10, 2026. The Tribunal has a mandate to provide timely and efficient resolution of disputes, and it is unclear what is the length of adjournment that the appellant is seeking;

c) I find that the appellant failed to provide any evidence to support the existence of a medical condition that would impact her ability to participate in the hearing. Without any evidence, there is no foundation for me to conclude that her adjournment request should be granted on that basis;

d) This is the second adjournment for this file. The Tribunal adjourned the first case conference on October 31, 2025 because the appellant did not attend despite being provided notice of the event;

e) The parties were provided with adequate notice of the written hearing date on December 10, 2025; and

f) I have no information whether the respondent consents to the adjournment requested because appellant’s communication to the Tribunal does not include the respondent nor outline the respondent’s position on the request. Usually, a party must ensure their opponents are copied on all communications with the tribunal, including an adjournment request like this one. Based on the respondent’s requests to dismiss this appeal, I conclude that the respondent would not consent to an adjournment.

ANALYSIS

Confirmed breach of warranty in Decision Letter

18Although the appellant did not provide submissions, based on Tarion’s decision letter dated June 18, 2025, I find, on a balance of probabilities that there is a breach of warranty under the Act.

19Under section 13(1) of the Act, every vendor or builder of a new home warrants to the owner that it is constructed in a workmanlike manner and is free from defects in materials, is fit for habitation, and constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code (“OBC”).

20Under section 13(1), the builder also warrants to the owner such other warranties as are prescribed by the regulations. Section 14 of the Act sets out the basis for compensation that might accrue to a homeowner if there is a breach of warranty under section 13. Section 14(3) stipulates that, subject to the regulations, a homeowner is entitled to receive payment out of Tarion’s Guarantee Fund (the “Fund”) for damages resulting from a breach of warranty.

21The appellant has the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the defect or deficiency reported in a claim is a breach of the builder warranty, and if so, the amount of damages that arise from the breach, i.e., the cost or repairing or replacing the warranted defect to the intended standard.

22In its Decision Letter, the respondent agreed that there were several defects in workmanship and materials as summarized in Table 1 below. The respondent offered the appellant $7,400.00 to resolve the defects and noted that the appellant did not accept this amount.

Table 1 Summary of Tarion decision for reported defects.

Number	Reported Defect	Tarion Decision
1	Missing switch cover	Defect in workmanship and materials, and therefore a breach of warranty.
2	Paint imperfections	Some sections do not meet the acceptable conditions set out in article 9. 9 ("Paint Finish is Unacceptable") of Construction Performance Guidelines. Defect in workmanship and materials, and therefore, a breach of warranty.
3	Loose trim on the door	Defect in workmanship and materials, and therefore, a breach of warranty.
4	Missing handle on a drawer	Not reported on Pre-Delivery Inspection form. This is not a defect in workmanship and materials, and therefore not a breach of warranty.
5	Toe kick in the kitchen was not secured	Defect in workmanship and materials, and therefore a breach of warranty.
6	Some floorboards were rough to the touch and were bumpy	Condition observed meets the acceptable conditions set out in article 12.23 and article 12.27 of Tarion's Construction Performance Guidelines. This is not a defect in workmanship and materials, and therefore not a breach of warranty

23The appellant did not file any documents for the hearing as required by the CCRO. I rely instead on the NOA and note that it lists a broad range of concerns with her home, her building manager, as well as Tarion, but does not identify which items from the Decision Letter are being appealed. In the NOA, the appellant submitted that previously, the respondent offered her $10,000.00 to settle the claim, however, the Decision Letter listed an offer of $7,400.00 instead. She states that $10,000.00 is “really not enough” and requested a change to her claim as follows:

i. A change/installation of a new door for her balcony;

ii. Performance of unspecified repairs as in “scope of work September 20, 2024”; and

iii. Compensation for 6 months of expenses while the appellant left the unit empty so repairs could — but were not — completed.

24The Act does not permit me to consider the requests for the additional claims made by the appellant in her NOA. The Tribunal can only exercise its authority to order payments from the guarantee fund in relation to claim items listed in a decision letter, not other additional or new claims listed in the NOA.

25Subsection 14(19) of the Act provides that after holding a hearing on a decision Tarion issued under subsection 14(13), the Tribunal may order Tarion to take actions, but those actions must be in accordance with the Act and its regulations. Subsection 14(17) of the Act provides that the Tribunal conduct a hearing based on the notice of appeal under s. 14(14). Subsection 14(14) provides the appellant with a right to appeal “the decision” to the Tribunal, after Tarion has issued its decision letter in accordance with s. 14(13). Subsection 14(13) outlines Tarion’s decision in respect of the new home warranty claim. Putting these provisions of the Act together, I find that for the Tribunal to order compensation for the items outlined in the NOA, the appellant would have had to claim these items as defects within the warranty period, the builder would have needed to have its statutory period to address the repair and Tarion given the opportunity to assess the warrantability of the defect. I find that the concerns outlined in the NOA are not listed in the Decision Letter, and therefore by operation of ss. 14(13), (14), (17) and (10), the new claims added in the appellant’s NOA are not properly before me.

26Although not specified by the appellant in her NOA, I conclude that since items 4 and 6 in Table 1 above were denied as defects, these denials form the basis of the appellant’s appeal for the written hearing. Because the appellant did not file any documents for the hearing, I find that there is no evidence before me to support a finding of a breach of warranty for these items.

27Although the appellant did not provide submissions, based on Tarion’s decision letter dated June 18, 2025, I find, on a balance of probabilities that there is a breach of warranty under the Act for items 1 through 3 and 5 only. Accordingly, I find that the appellant is entitled to a $7,400.00 payment out of the guarantee fund as proposed by the respondent in in its Decision Letter. I have no evidence before me to support a higher payment.

ORDER

28The respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing is denied.

29The appellant’s adjournment request is denied.

30The appellant is entitled to a $7,400.00 payment out of the guarantee fund as proposed by the respondent in the Decision Letter. I direct Tarion to pay that amount to the appellant, pursuant to s. 14(19) of the Act.