Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18094/ONHWPA

In the matter of an appeal from a decision of Tarion Warranty Corporation under s. 14 of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 (the “Act”).

Between:

Edith and Andy Wong

Appellants

and

Tarion Warranty Corporation

Respondent

and

Bluegrass Valley Properties Ltd./Stanford Homes

Added Party

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dagmar Boettcher

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Edith Wong, Self-represented

Andy Wong, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Brad Taylor, Warranty Services Manager

Ayesha Mehreen, Counsel

For the Added Party:

Diana Sousa, VP Construction Operations

Arlene Campbell, Counsel

Hearing Reporter:

Laila Butt

Heard By Videoconference: April 27 and April 28, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Edith and Andy Wong (the “appellants”) appeal from a Decision Letter (“DL”) issued by Tarion Warranty Corporation (the “respondent” or “Tarion”) dated December 4, 2025 pursuant to s. 14(13) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 (“Act”) denying the appellants’ claims submitted on their Year-End Form.

2The appellants entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the property on October 28, 2021 with Bluegrass Valley Properties Ltd. (the “builder”) for a home located at 8 Prestige Court in the City of Brampton. The occupancy date of the home was November 22, 2022.

3At the case conference for this matter on January 30, 2026, Bluegrass Valley Properties Ltd./Stanford Homes was added as a party to the proceeding.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

4The issues in dispute are:

i. Whether claim items 2, 3, and 9 of the Year-End Form constitute a breach of warranty under s. 14(3) of the Act,

ii. If so, whether the appellants suffered monetary damages resulting from the breach(es) of warranty and;

iii. If so, what is the amount of the damages.

RESULT

5Having considered all of the evidence and for the reasons that follow, the Tribunal orders that Tarion deny the appellants’ warranty claims that are the subject of this appeal.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

6Throughout the hearing there were multiple procedural issues that were raised or arose which required me to issue orders. Orders were issued through my authority under section 25.0.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, 1990 (“SPPA”), which states: “A tribunal has the power to determine its own procedures and practices and may for that purpose: (a) make orders with respect to the procedures and practices that apply in any particular proceeding; and (b) establish rules under s. 25.1. I have summarized them here:

Witness for the Builder

7At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent’s counsel brought forward a concern regarding the calling of a builder’s witness, Michael Coniglio. Mr. Coniglio had also been served a summons by the appellants as a witness. The respondent’s counsel submitted that if the appellant undertook an examination in chief of Mr. Coniglio as their witness, he would then be an adverse witness for the builder.

8I took submissions from the appellants, who submitted that their concern was primarily to ensure that Mr. Coniglio attend the hearing when required, so that he could be examined. The appellants agreed to allow the builder’s counsel to undertake the examination in chief, after which the appellants would cross-examine Mr. Coniglio.

Testimony and Cross-Examination of the Appellants

9After the appellants’ opening statement, the respondent requested clarification from the Tribunal as to who would be cross-examined for the appellants. I clarified with the appellants that only one of the appellants could speak at a time and that this was required as a court reporter was in attendance. Mrs. Wong advised that she would be testifying rather than her son. I confirmed with the respondent and the builder that they had no objections to Mrs. Wong testifying and being cross-examined on behalf of both appellants.

10However, during the course of the appellants’ testimony, Mr. Wong could be heard in the background speaking to his mother. I restated the process that had been agreed upon by Mrs. Wong and the reasons why it was not feasible to have Mr. Wong finishing sentences, interjecting his comments, or for the appellants to be speaking to each other during the testimony. The hearing continued.

11During the cross-examination of the appellant by the respondent on the afternoon of the first day of the hearing, Mrs. Wong asked why questions were only directed to her and not to Mr. Wong. Mrs. Wong stated that both she and her son knew the situation and had nothing to hide and that her son should be able to speak and answer questions during cross-examination. I again reiterated the procedure that all parties had agreed upon.

Change to the Builder’s Witness

12After the opening statements, the builder advised that the witness for Dominion Roofing (“Dominion”) that had been identified on their witness list, filed with the Tribunal, and served on the appellants, could not attend the hearing due to a conflict. The appellants objected to the change to the witness and requested an explanation for the substitution. The builder advised that the original roofer with Dominion had a last-minute scheduling issue and the witness that would be appearing instead was a co-owner of Dominion, Geoff Silverberg. The builder submitted that there was no change to the evidence and documents that had been filed and that the new witness would be able to speak to the items in dispute regarding the roof. The builder submitted further that the appellants would have an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Silverberg. The respondent advised they did not oppose the replacement of the witness.

13I considered the objections by the appellants and advised the appellants that the Tribunal could not compel the original roofer, who had not been served a summons by the appellants, to attend. I find that the new witness is replacing a similar witness who can testify and be cross-examined on the documents that the other witness would have testified to. I advised the parties that the testimony of the substitute witness for the builder would be weighted appropriately in my decision, pursuant to Rule 9.5.2.

Cross-Examination of the parties by the Appellants

14After lunch on the second day of the hearing, Mrs. Wong submitted that her son should be able to cross-examine the respondent. I took submissions from the respondent and the builder and neither objected to having Mr. Wong perform the cross-examination. However, when the respondent was to be cross-examined, Mrs. Wong advised she would continue to cross-examine the respondent. The hearing continued.

Appellant Fails to Pose Questions

15During the hearing, the respondent and the builder raised numerous objections regarding the appellants’ failure to pose questions of the respondent, builder, and the witnesses. In many cases the respondent pointed out that the appellant was engaged in circular reasoning. The appellant consistently read from her submissions without posing a question. I repeatedly reminded the appellant that this was her opportunity to examine the parties and, after each objection, asked the appellant to form a question.

16During the second day of the hearing, the respondent and the builder also objected to the appellant testifying during her cross-examination of the Dominion witness, Mr. Silverberg. I reminded the appellant that the cross-examination process was her opportunity to ask Mr. Silverberg questions, rather than reiterating her own previous testimony.

Appellant Calls Into Question the Respondent’s Internal Processes

17The respondent also objected to the appellant calling into question the respondent’s internal processes regarding the conciliation process. I advised Mrs. Wong that her questions and statements regarding the respondent’s internal processes were not appropriate and not the purpose of this hearing, and that the questions did not speak to the alleged breach of warranty by the builder.

Appellant Calls Into Question the Authenticity of the Builder’s Documents and the Conduct of the Builder

18During the cross-examination of the builder, the appellant called into question the authenticity of the documents filed by the builder’s counsel. Counsel for the builder objected to the appellant’s suggestion that the documents were not authentic and advised that she had personally compiled the documents. I agreed with the builder’s counsel and advised the appellant that counsel is an officer of the court and it is not appropriate to question the authenticity of the documents without presenting any evidence that would call into question the authenticity of the documents.

19During the cross examination of the respondent representative, Brad Taylor, the appellant made several comments regarding the respondent’s conduct and appropriateness of his decisions. The respondent’s counsel objected to Mrs. Wong’s statements. I agreed with the respondent’s counsel and asked the appellant to refrain from making comments on conduct or character that were not appropriate for the hearing.

Appellant’s Questions Outside the Scope of the Witnesses

20The respondent also objected to the appellant’s questions that related to items outside the scope of their duties and submitted that questions for the builder should be posed to the builder, rather than to Mr. Taylor. I agreed, clarified with Mrs. Wong, and we moved on. However, during the appellant’s cross examination of Mr. Coniglio, the representative for the builder, counsel again objected to the appellant’s questions and submitted they should have been posed to Mr. Taylor rather than to Mr. Coniglio. I agreed, clarified with Mrs. Wong, and we moved on.

Appellants Testimony Often Refers to 30-Day Form

21I find that the appellants continuously referred to the 30-Day Form, which is not the issue in dispute in this hearing. On a number of occasions, both the counsel and I asked the appellants to focus on the Year-End Form and Decision letter, as this was the focus of the hearing. The legislation and regulation offer a forum for the resolution of issues within the initial claim period, which the appellants did not pursue. Through testimony, it became apparent that the appellants believe that unresolved issues raised in the 30-Day Form should be addressed again within the Year-End Form, and that the warranty should cover all issues raised during the first year. The appellants confirmed that they had not asked for a Decision Letter after filing the 30-Day Form.

ANALYSIS

Tarion warranty protection scheme

22Under s. 13(1) of the Act, the builder of a new home warrants that it is constructed in a workmanlike manner and is free from defects in material, is fit for habitation, and is constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code (“OBC”). Under section 13(1), the builder also warrants to the owner such other warranties as are prescribed by the regulations.

23The term “workmanlike manner” is not defined in the Act. It has been described by the Tribunal in Goulet (Re) [2000] OCRATD No. 51, at para. 9, as including functionality, expertise, practice skill, proficiency, craftsmanship, competency, and the ability to do something well. In 11595 v. Tarion Warranty Corporation, 2019 CanLII 29106 (ON LAT) the Tribunal found that whether construction not done in a workmanlike manner depends in part at least on whether it has been falling below industry standards.

24The appearance of the work, or aesthetics may play a role in some cases, but must be considered in relation to the concept of workmanship and not simply as a matter of the subjective assessment of the parties. This is because s. 13 does not provide for a warranty specifically for aesthetic matters but only for failure to construct in a workmanlike manner.

25Section 14 of the Act sets out the basis for compensation that might accrue to a homeowner if 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 for damages resulting from a breach of warranty.

26The appellants have the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that an item claimed is warranted under the Act and, if so, the amount of damages which have resulted from the breach.

Warranty Claims

27The appellants have appealed the Decision Letter issued by Tarion on December 4, 2025 for 3 items claimed on the appellants’ Year-End Form.

28The appellants submit that the DL issued by Tarion for the Year-End form is incorrect, unfair, without evidence or jurisdiction, and unreasonable.

Claim Item 2 – Exterior - Grass

29The appellants allege that more soil/dirt needs to be added to the lawn in many areas as the grass is not properly levelled.

30The appellants testified that the sod was installed on May 17, 2023, began to die very soon after installation, and was not levelled properly. Under cross-examination by the builder’s counsel, the appellants confirmed that the sod was alive when installed. Photographs submitted into evidence by the appellants are dated March 23, 2025, two years after the sod was installed. The photographs are black and white, are taken at a very close range and show the sod around the perimeter of the house to approximately 6 inches away from the foundation wall. The photographs do not show a levelling issue as they are taken at a very close range. While I was pointed to these photographs as evidence that the sod was uneven and more soil was needed, I was not able to determine that what the photos showed confirmed the appellants allegations.

31The appellants also testified that they had included the lack of sod in the 30-Day Form, dated January 11, 2023. The 30-Day Form indicates that the builder advised that the sod would be installed once weather permitted, as the occupancy date was November 22, 2022 and this was too late in the season to install sod. The appellants stated they were not satisfied that the sod installation was delayed until May 17, 2023, and felt it should have been completed sooner. They submitted further that the respondent had moved the sod issue on the 30-Day Form to a seasonal item in order to help out the builder. The appellants provided no evidence to support this allegation and I find that the Seasonal/Special Seasonal Items heading on the 30-Day Conciliation Assessment Report (“CAR”) is more a way in which to categorize the issues and not an attempt by the respondent to delay the installation of the sod. The respondent confirmed with the appellants that they had not requested a DL after the 30-Day CAR.

32The respondent testified that the levelling of the property and the sod had been inspected as part of the Year-End CAR dated August 13, 2025. The respondent points me to the Tarion Analysis for Item 2 within the report which states that under section 14.10 of the Construction Performance Guidelines (“CPG”), landscaping plants provided are to be alive when installed and further, under section 14.12 of the CPG, the gradient appeared to fall within the CPG standards. The respondent testified he found only minor settlement around window wells.

33I was pointed to emails between the appellants and the builder dated June 18, 2023 and June 19, 2023. The appellants testified there was no communication or confirmation that the lawn issues had been looked into within these emails. In reviewing the email of June 18, 2023, I find that the sod and soil issues are included within the email and include a date of June 19, 2023 to resolve these issues.

34The appellants also testified that the builder has attempted to shift responsibility for the sod installation and levelling to the City of Brampton and submitted into evidence “Lot Grading Guidelines” printed from the City website. The appellants submitted that the information does not indicate that sodding or levelling of the property is the responsibility of the City and that the City only checks that water does not penetrate into the home. The appellants testified that they asked the City to come out to the home to perform an inspection of the sod and levelling, but were advised that this is not the responsibility of the City. Under cross-examination the appellants confirmed that they did not summons anyone from the city in support of their testimony.

35The appellants also testified that the builder did not measure the grading of the property to ensure it met with the required City guidelines. In cross-examination, the appellants acknowledged that they also had not measured the lot gradient.

36The builder submitted as evidence, the interim lot grading certification from the City dated November 14, 2023 and the final lot grading certification dated July 16, 2025. The builder also testified that Clause 3(b), Schedule X of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale states that acceptance of construction, siting and grading by the Municipality shall constitute acceptance by the purchaser. While I understand that the appellants may find that their property has some areas where the sod is not perfectly level, the property appears to have been certified as appropriately graded by the City.

37The builder testified that he had sent an email to the appellants regarding the need to water the newly installed sod frequently, as well as a note left on the appellants’ door dated May 17, 2023 reminding the appellant to water the sod frequently. In my opinion, and after hearing the testimony of the respondent and builder, I find that the appellants have failed to provide evidence that the sod was dead when installed.

38I find that the appellants have not persuaded me that the sod has died as a result of a breach of warranty by the builder. Based on the final lot grading certification and the photographs entered into evidence, I am also not persuaded that the property has a grading issue or that more soil/dirt needs to be added because the grass is not properly levelled.

39I find the appellants’ concerns fall within the realm of aesthetics and note that s. 13 does not provide for a warranty specifically for aesthetic matters but only for failure to construct in a workmanlike manner.

40I am not satisfied that this item is warranted.

Claim Item 3 – Exterior - Roof Top - Shingles

41The appellants submit that the roof shingles have been a concern since the 30-Day Form and that the shingles are lifting and need to be fixed in many areas around the home. The appellants submit further that the shingles have not been sealed properly and that the roof is wavy, should have been warranted and replaced. The appellants submit that the builder has failed to meet its obligations under the warranty and repair provisions and despite numerous attempts to have the builder address and rectify the defects, its response has been inadequate.

42The appellants referred me to the 30-Day CAR and pointed me to Items 90 and 207 as evidence that the shingles needed repair. The appellants also disputed the respondent’s notes in the CAR and submit that for both items, the respondent failed to correctly identify the areas that the appellants pointed them to, and that the notes and analysis were incorrect.

43The respondent’s warranty services manager, Brad Taylor, had completed the 30-Day CAR and testified that his notes and analysis were correct for Items 90 and 207, and that he had reviewed the areas specifically pointed to by the appellants. He also testified that Dominion had inspected the Items identified as 90 and 207 on the 30-Day Form and found no issues with the shingles. He testified that the appellants pointed to an area during the conciliation assessment where shingles were lifting, however the respondent testified that the builder noted the shingles overlap the metal valley in this area, and this installation is intended to prevent water from entering under the shingles.

44Mr. Taylor also testified that he took photographs and provided these to the appellants, however, the appellants did not have their own photographs that showed an issue with the shingles. The appellants confirmed under cross-examination that they did not request a Decision Letter from Tarion after the 30-Day CAR, and provided no evidence that they wished to dispute the non-warrantable items in the 30-Day CAR.

45The appellants again noted the roof shingles on the Year-End Form dated November 22, 2023 as item 3, and testified that the shingles continued to be a concern and the appellants submit the shingles were not properly sealed and that the roof is wavy.

46The appellants also submitted as evidence an email dated September 30, 2024 to the builder with a picture attached that the appellants submit show the shingles have not been secured. The picture is black and white and of a very poor quality, and I cannot discern the issue put forward by the appellants based on the photograph submitted into evidence. The photographs filed as exhibits do not show any significant problem with the roof or shingles areas alleged to be deficient. While the appellants testified that another roofer had advised them that the roof shingles installed on their roof had been discontinued, they did not point me to any evidence indicating that the roof shingles were substandard.

47The appellants entered into evidence two quotations from independent roofing companies to replace the roof shingles, sheathing, flashing, and vents. The quotations submitted include Elite Roofing in the amount of $15,594.00 on March 28, 2026 and King Roof in the amount of $10,170.00.

48Under cross-examination the appellants testified that Elite Roofing had attended the home on Sept 28, 2024, however appellants received no report from the roofer or quotation at that time. The appellants confirmed that they had not called either firm to appear as witnesses and had not requested reports previously as this would be an additional cost. In the absence of complete roofing reports, I find that I cannot determine from the quotations submitted whether the roofing companies simply quoted on replacing the roof because that is what the appellants requested.

49The builder, Michael Coniglio, testified that he had received an email from the appellants dated February 21, 2023 in which the appellants also attached pictures and pointed to a missing shingle on the back of the home. The builder confirmed that he had seen a missing shingles between the houses and confirmed that these were repaired.

50Geoff Silverberg of Dominion testified for the builder that after new homes have been constructed, there is a period of settling of the home and structure and during this period vibration can cause roofing nails to pop. Mr. Silverberg testified that this is normal for new roofs and when photographs of the roof entered into evidence were shown to Mr. Silverberg, he testified he saw no issues with the roof and that it appeared to be in very good condition.

51Mr. Silverberg testified that Dominion had first met with the appellants on March 15, 2023 to discuss the appellants’ claim that shingles were missing at the back of the home and pointed me to a one-page Inspection Summary prepared by Terrie Lucaci, the New Work Service Manager. The Summary listed the site visits to the home by Dominion and indicates that Dominion attended the home on seven separate occasions between March 15, 2023 and September 26, 2024, to review the appellants’ concerns with the roof.

52I found no evidence that Dominion or the builder had been unresponsive to the appellants’ complaints and concerns. The appellants questioned the internal processes between the builder and Dominion and specifically questioned the process whereby the builder raises a work order to Dominion and the process Dominion follows to act on the work order. I found no irregularities with the work order process as described by Dominion and no evidence that the appellants concerns were not addressed.

53The respondent also testified that on November 3, 2025, April Abreu, Manager of Warranty Services emailed the appellants and offered to send a third-party roofing consultant to the home to inspect the shingles. The respondent entered into evidence the email from the appellants declining the offer on the same date.

54The appellants testified that they were offered two choices by the respondent; either accept the offer of a third-party inspection, or proceed with an appeal to the Tribunal. The appellants testified that they were not informed that by declining the third-party roof inspection, they would be disentitled to compensation under the Act.

55The appellants referred to eight emails exchanged between themselves and the builder on September 30, 2024 and emails on October 3, 10, 11, and 17, 2024, all of which were entered into evidence. The September emails pertain to appointments made or clarification of pictures sent. The October emails pertain to the conciliation process and the appellants’ request to stop scheduling tradesmen as they have lost trust in the builder. The appellants testified that it was because they had lot trust in the builder that they declined the third-party roofing inspection.

56However, I find that in light of the evidence presented, the appellants have failed to demonstrate that a breach of warranty occurred and I am not satisfied therefore that this item is warranted.

Claim item 9 – Interior - Dapping

57The appellants allege that dapping is required for the baseboards, wall joints, and window frames/casings throughout the house.

58The appellants point me to excerpts of the CPG entered into evidence and submit that the guidelines state that gaps of 2mm are not acceptable. The appellants testified that the respondent did not measure the gaps when on site.

59The appellant also testified that the 30-Day Form indicated that Items 150 and 174 for dapping issues were withdrawn by the appellants. However, the appellants testifed that they did not withdraw the dapping issues, but that these were withdrawn by the respondent. The respondent testified that he did not withdraw the items, but that they were withdrawn by the appellants, and therefore the items were not assessed.

60The builder entered into evidence a work order dated December 4, 2023 in which the dapping issue was reported and resolved and pointed to the appellants’ signature as completed on the work order. The appellant confirms her signature, however, testifies that the dapping repairs were completed in May 2024 and that issue reappeared a few days later and that it was not properly completed.

61The appellants testified that they had not measured the gaps themselves and that as of the date of the hearing the gaps had not been measured by anyone.

62The builder submitted that there will be shrinkage of dapping material if the home is not outfitted with a dehumidifier. The builder testified that they had attended the home after the 30-Day Form and, with the appellants present, had dapped areas that needed additional dapping.

63Under cross-examination by the builder, that appellants confirmed that they do not have a central furnace humidifier, but do have a portable humidifier. The builder submitted into evidence photographs of a device the builder had used in the home to measure temperature and humidity. The photographs indicated temperature settings of either 69F or 66F and humidity levels of 15%. The builder testified that both the temperature settings were too low and that the humidity levels in the home fell far below the 30-50% range which is the comfort levels. The builder submitted low temperature and low humidity will result in gaps in the dapping.

64I find that the appellants did not provide any evidence that confirms that the dapping was not installed in a “workmanlike manner” and find that the appellants have failed to demonstrate that a breach of warranty occurred.

65I am not satisfied therefore that this item is warranted.

CONCLUSION

66I find the appellants did not meet their burden to prove that the items listed as 2, 3 and 9 in the Year-End Form constituted a breach of warranty under s. 14(3) of the Act.

67I am not satisfied that the defects alleged by the appellants are warranted under the Act.

ORDER

68For the above reasons and pursuant to s. 14(19) of the Act, the Tribunal orders that Tarion deny the appellants’ warranty claims that are the subject of this appeal.