Decision and Order
the W.A.R. issued on January 5, 2018, on April 9, 2018, Item #12 in that form
included a brief description of the then state of the drywall in the basement office:
The office had flooded twice from the window well filling, as a result
mold was located, wall need another coat of compound & paint
 T.S. has worked for Tarion for almost twenty-one years. While at the time of the
hearing, he was employed in a new capacity, in 2018, he remained a warranty
service representative and had taken carriage of the Appellants’ file after R.S. was
transferred to his new position. He also completed the examination for Section 9
of the Building Code and is registered as an independent designer.
 On June 4, 2018, T.S. attended at the property to conduct a conciliation inspection
with respect to the First Year Form. Once again, G.O. was absent, but T.S.
testified that he had no idea why.
 Although Tarion intended to conduct a water test during this meeting, M.R. agreed
that he had indicated to Tarion that such a test was not necessary. T.S. recalled
that M.R. met him at the door on June 4, 2018 and informed him that he would
work with the builder and that the water test was not necessary at that time. M.R.
testified that the scheduled test would have related to water penetration on the
other side of the house, an unrelated issue that had been resolved. He repeatedly
maintained that the June 4, 2018 test was not intended to address the water leaks
from the window well area, an interpretation apparently shared by R.S. However,
since the issues in the basement office had been included in the conciliation
inspection, T.S. advised M.R. that if any outstanding issues were not resolved, he
could request another conciliation. provided that such a request was made by
September 10, 2018. No request for this conciliation was made.
 Despite some disagreement with respect to the dates of specific events, the
parties agreed that the repairs to the basement were completed by July, 2019.
However, shortly thereafter, M.R. testified that he noticed black spots that he
believed to be mould recurring in the same areas as mould had been found
previously. As a result, he included these issues in the Second Year Form.
The Second Year Form and 2019 Conciliation
 On April 11, 2019, M.R. submitted the Second Year Form. Although Item 1-4 of
the Outstanding Items contained a description that indicated that damage in the
basement had been caused by a “leak that was never found,” M.R. explained at
the hearing this notation was intended to convey that the source of the leak had
yet to be confirmed as of that date. The Appellants then requested a conciliation
with respect to this form.
 M.R., T.S. and G.O. attended the October 9, 2019 conciliation inspection at the
property. M.R. showed T.S. the dark staining along the bottom of a baseboard in
the basement, on the office wall under the window and on the cold room door and
advised him that this substance was mould. T.S. testified that the spots were quite