Ryan Schell

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their second-year warranty claims for disintegrating front precast steps and water penetration in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal admitted the evidence of Tarion's warranty services representative as a participant expert.

The Tribunal found that the damage to the steps was caused by the appellants' use of salt or de-icer, which is excluded from warranty coverage as improper maintenance.

The Tribunal also held that the water penetration claim was statute-barred because it was not raised within the two-year warranty period.

In the alternative, the Tribunal found the water penetration was caused by ice damming rather than a warrantable construction defect.

The appeal was dismissed.

Both the appellants and the respondent sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding new home warranty claims.

The respondent argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by relying on video evidence concerning roof rainfall handling that had been exchanged prior to the hearing but never formally entered into evidence.

The adjudicator agreed, finding that relying on unadmitted evidence deprived the respondent of the opportunity to test or contradict it, thereby breaching procedural fairness.

The respondent's request was granted, and a re-hearing was ordered limited to the roof rainfall handling issue.

The appellants' cross-request for reconsideration, supported only by newly submitted photos and videos without written submissions, was dismissed.

The added party builder brought a motion to have the upcoming appeal hearing proceed in person and to limit the scope of the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the request for an in-person hearing due to the ongoing pandemic, ordering that the hearing proceed by videoconference.

The Tribunal granted the request to limit the scope of the hearing to the issues of the precast front porch steps and rainwater penetration, as other issues had been previously adjudicated.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision to disallow their warranty claims regarding their new home.

The claims involved condensation in the cold room, lot grading, and eavestrough drainage.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the cold room and lot grading, finding they were not covered by the warranty.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the eavestroughs, finding that the builder's removal of downspouts to comply with municipal requirements resulted in a system that was not constructed in a workmanlike manner.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their new home warranty claims against the builder.

The claims involved a missing bidet, defective grout, and damaged hardwood floors.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no breach of warranty, noting the bidet was not in the purchase agreement, the grout met industry standards, and the floor damage was not reported during the pre-delivery inspection.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing their claim for alleged structural defects in their new home.

At the hearing, the self-represented appellant brought a motion for the adjudicator to recuse herself, alleging bias, which was dismissed for lack of evidence.

On the merits, the appellants failed to provide any evidence to support their claims of structural defects.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of a structural engineer retained by Tarion, who confirmed the home was built in accordance with the Ontario Building Code and that all issues had been remediated.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding the asymmetrical construction of their new home's cathedral ceiling.

The appellants argued the 4-inch discrepancy in the ceiling's starting points was an aesthetic defect.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that aesthetics alone do not constitute a breach of the warranty that a home is constructed in a workmanlike manner, absent evidence that the construction fell below industry standards.

The Tribunal also noted the appellants provided no evidence of damages.