Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18207/ONHWPA

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

Between:

Adeline Chew

Appellant

and

Tarion Warranty Corporation

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Adeline Chew, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Ayesha Mehreen, Counsel

Heard by teleconference: April 22, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Adeline Chew (the “appellant”) appeals a Decision Letter (the “Decision Letter”) issued, pursuant to s. 14 of Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 (the “Act”), by Tarion Warranty Corporation (“Tarion”), on January 9, 2026. In its Decision Letter, Tarion denied the appellant’s claims listed on her Major Structural Defect Form (“MSD Form”) in relation to defects and deficiencies in the construction of her new home in accordance with the Act.

2The two claims in dispute listed on the MSD Form are as follows:

i. Brick Veneer: Defects in the construction of the home’s brick veneer have resulted in water penetration into the building’s structure. See item 2 in file – Brick Veneer.

ii. Roof #2 – Defects in the construction of the home’s roof assembly have resulted, contribute to, and exacerbate water penetration into the building’s structure. See item 5 in uploaded file – Roof.

3With respect to the claim involving the Brick Veneer, the appellant appeals on the basis that the claim should have been assessed under the second-year claim rather than as a major structural defect. The appellant does not challenge the Decision Letter with respect to its findings as to whether the Brick Veneer is warranted as a major structural defect but instead argues that her claim should have been assessed using second-year warranty criteria. To be clear, the appellant does not argue that the claim regarding the Brick Veneer meets the second-year warranty criteria, only that Tarion has an obligation under the Act to conduct an assessment to determine whether the second-year warranty criteria are met.

4With respect to the Roof claim, the appellant submits that Tarion failed to assess that claim at all and that it should also be assessed under the second-year warranty criteria rather than as a major structural defect. Again, the appellant does not take the position that this claim satisfies the major structural defect criteria or the second-year warranty criteria and only seeks an order compelling Tarion to conduct an assessment of this claim which she says should be done using second-year warranty criteria.

5Tarion’s position is that the items claimed were assessed under the major structural defect criteria in compliance with the Act and that the second-year warranty claims were resolved several years ago and cannot be reopened. Tarion submits that the appeal ought to be dismissed.

ISSUES

6The issues in dispute are:

i. Whether Tarion should be ordered to assess the Brick Veneer claim using second-year warranty criteria; and

ii. Whether Tarion should be ordered to assess the Roof claim and whether that claim should be assessed using second-year warranty criteria.

RESULT

7The Tribunal does not have the authority to reopen the second-year warranty claims process as the appellant requests. I find that the Tribunal does not have the authority to order Tarion to assess claims made in a MSD Form on the basis of second-year claims criteria.

8Tarion failed to issue to the owner and the vender a conciliation assessment report in respect of whether claim item 5, the Roof claim, listed on the MSD Form is covered by the major structural defect warranty as it was required to do under the Act and regulations. Tarion shall conduct a conciliation of the Roof claim as required under the Act and regulations.

ANALYSIS

The ordering of a second-year warranty assessment

9The issue of whether the Tribunal may order Tarion to assess the claims in dispute under second-year warranty criteria is relevant to both issues in dispute. The issue with respect to the Roof claim has an additional element which will be discussed below.

10The first date of possession with resect to this home was August 10, 2018. The appellant did not purchase the home until 2024. On August 8, 2020, the previous homeowner filed with Tarion their second-year claim form which listed a significant number of areas in the home which were experiencing water penetration. Tarion did an inspection of the home and an Assessment Report was issued October 25, 2020, which found almost all of the water