Ranisha Fernando

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying multiple claim items under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding their new home.

The appellants alleged various defects in workmanship and materials, including flooring, painting, drywall, a damaged garage door, and ventilation issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide objective evidence of industry standards for most claims, relying instead on personal dissatisfaction.

However, the Tribunal found that the painted surface of an arched transom (claim item 10) and a damaged garage door panel (claim item 12) constituted breaches of warranty.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to perform or arrange for the repair of these two items, while dismissing the remaining claims.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for a 'howling' noise in a shower.

Prior to the conciliation inspection, the appellant hired a plumber to install pressure reducing valves to mitigate the noise without authorization from the builder or Tarion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's unilateral alteration of the plumbing system deprived Tarion of the ability to accurately assess the original condition, thereby voiding the warranty under s. 13(2)(g) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant homeowner appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for a thumping noise in the plumbing system caused by the washing machine.

The appellant argued the water hammer violated the Ontario Building Code and constituted a breach of the builder's warranty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the occasional thumping noise was a normal condition resulting from the abrupt closing of appliance valves, consistent with the Construction Performance Guidelines.

The Tribunal concluded there was no breach of warranty and ordered Tarion to deny the claim.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying compensation for multiple claim items under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to remedy contractual disputes outside the enumerated warranties of the Act, such as the builder's failure to provide a two-car garage or a basement subfloor.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding breaches of warranty for a misaligned front door, a defective clothes washer drain pan, bathtub scratches, and scratched door plates, awarding compensation from the guarantee fund.

The remaining claims, including those for an allegedly undersized air conditioner, buckled fascia, and chipped stone, were dismissed for failing to prove a defect in materials or workmanship.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to a $2,200 psychological treatment plan, arguing he suffered from accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, relying on the respondent's psychological assessment which found no impairment.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's procedural argument that the respondent's denial notice was non-compliant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered predominantly minor physical injuries, with no evidence of psychological impairment or chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The applicant's claims for medical benefits beyond the MIG limit and for an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended that a pre-existing psychological condition, stemming from the death of his daughter and a marital breakdown, prevented his maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence of a pre-existing psychological impairment or diagnosis that would prevent maximal recovery.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the disputed treatment plan, interest, and award were denied.