Tribunals Ontario

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18114/ONHWPA

In the matter of an appeal of a decision of Tarion Warranty Corporation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 (the “Act”) to deny a claim

Between:

Darrell King and Tracy King

Appellants

and

Tarion Warranty Corporation

Respondent

MOTION DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dagmar Boettcher

Representatives:

For the Appellant:

Darrell King, self-represented Tracy King, self-represented

For the Respondent: HEARD in writing

Carling Chan, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1Darrell and Tracy King, (the “appellants”) appeal from a Decision Letter (“DL”), dated October 17, 2025, issued by the respondent Tarion Warranty Corporation (“respondent”) to deny the appellant’s claim under s.14(3) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 (the “Act”). The appellants appeal all the warranty claims listed within the DL.

2A case conference was held on February 9, 2026 and an amended Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) was issued on February 20, 2026. Pursuant to Rule 9.5.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, the amended CCRO required the parties to file with the Tribunal, and to exchange all documents they intend to rely on, as well as their list of intended witnesses and brief summaries of their expected evidence within 45 calendar days after the case conference. Within 14 days of the hearing the parties were to file their responsive documents. Therefore, the initial document exchange date was March 26, 2026 and the responsive exchange date was June 8, 2026.

3The hearing has been scheduled for June 22, 2026 to June 26, 2026.

4The appellants brought a motion on March 31, 2026 to extend the document exchange date to May 7, 2026. The Motion did not address an extension of the date for the responsive documents or an adjournment of the hearing to another date.

5The respondent consents to the appellants’ request to extend the document exchange date to May 7, 2026. However, the respondent requested further that the hearing be adjourned for 60 days in order to allow the respondent to review the appellants’ new expert reports and to potentially respond to the reports or conduct further investigations. The respondent submits this would be reasonable and procedurally fair and relies upon Certas Direct Insurance Company v. Gonsalves, 2011 ONSC 3986 as well as 17-005722 v Gore Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 CanLII 139518 (ON LAT) in support of its request to adjourn the hearing for 60 days. The respondent also requests that the appellants deliver immediately all documents for items unrelated to the new expert reports.

6The appellants filed reply submissions opposing the adjournment of the hearing and, as well, the appellants reply submission opposed the immediate exchange and filing of all documents unrelated to the new expert reports.

ISSUES

The issues in dispute in this motion are:

a) whether the document exchange deadlines specified within the CCRO dated February 20, 2026 should be extended to May 7, 2026;

b) whether the documents for items unrelated to the new expert reports must be filed immediately; and

c) whether the hearing should be adjourned.

RESULT

7I find that the document exchange date should be extended to May 7, 2026, in order for the appellants and the respondent to receive and review the new expert reports.

8I find also, that I am not able to discern