Tribunals Ontario  
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario  
Licence Appeal Tribunal  
Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis  
Citation: 1957922 Ontario Ltd. v. Registrar, New Home Construction Licencing  
Act, 2017, 2022 ONLAT NHCLA 12870  
Date: 2022-05-31  
File Number: 12870/NHCLA  
Appeal from the amended notice of proposal dated August 17, 2020 made by the  
Registrar, New Home Construction Licencing Act, 2017 (formerly Tarion Warranty  
Corporation) proposing to refuse to renew the registration of the appellant under section  
43 of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, S.O 2017, c. 33, Sched. 1  
Between:  
1957922 Ontario Ltd.  
Appellant  
and  
Registrar, New Home Construction Licencing Act, 2017  
Respondent  
DECISION AND ORDER  
ADJUDICATOR:  
APPEARANCES:  
Kevin Lundy, Member  
For the Appellant:  
Valerie Astudillo, Paralegal  
For the Respondent:  
Montgomery Shillington, Counsel  
Heard by Videoconference: July 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 2021  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
A. OVERVIEW  
[1] 1957922 Ontario Ltd. (the ‘Appellant’) has appealed an Amended Notice of  
Proposal to Refuse to Renew Registration issued by the Tarion Warranty  
Corporation (‘Tarion’) on August 17, 2020 to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the  
‘Tribunal’). Tarion’s licencing authority under the Ontario New Home Warranties  
Plan Act (the ‘ONHWPA’) was subsequently assumed by the Home Construction  
Regulatory Authority (the ‘Registrar’) under the New Home Construction Licensing  
Act, 2017 (the ‘Act’) as of February 1, 2021.  
[2] The Registrar took the position that the Appellant breached warranties under  
section 13 of the ONHWPA for a home in Pelham, Ontario and failed to indemnify  
Tarion for the resulting losses. The Registrar has also alleged that the past  
conduct of the Appellant’s officer and director, Franca Pingue (‘F.P.’), affords  
reasonable grounds to believe that the Appellant’s business undertakings will not  
be carried on in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.  
[3] F.P. took the position that she made every effort to fulfill her duties as a registered  
builder but was obstructed by difficult homeowners. She also alleged that the  
Respondent never put her on notice with respect to the penalty amounts she could  
face. Furthermore, she submitted that the Registrar has incorrectly labelled her as  
disrespectful and aggressive.  
[4] The following witnesses participated in the videoconference: Erin Cahill (‘E.C.’),  
Magda Macari (‘M.M.’), Michael Provo (‘M.P.’), Timothy Semenuk (‘T.S.’), F.P. and  
Bruce Hindrea (‘B.H.’). Glen McCabe (‘G.M.’) and Pat La Scala (‘P.L.S.’)  
participated by telephone. Letizia Filipazzo (‘L.F.’) and F.P. attended the full seven  
days as instructing clients to their legal representatives while the other witnesses  
were excluded until their evidence was called.  
B. PRELIMINARY ISSUES  
Change of Adjudicator  
[5] The hearing commenced on July 21, 2021 by videoconference and continued on  
July 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, concluding on July 30, 2021. As requested by the Registrar  
and ordered by the Tribunal, a court reporter was present. However, as the  
hearing adjudicator was no longer available to issue the order, the parties agreed  
that rather than reconvene the hearing de novo, it would be assigned to another  
adjudicator who would re-hear the appeal and issue an order based upon the  
audio recordings from the above hearing dates and the submitted exhibits. This  
agreement implicitly bound the parties to accept the rulings issued by the original  
adjudicator during the course of the hearing.  
2
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
Respondent’s Motion to Exclude Appellant’s Late File Documents  
[6] The Appellant’s paralegal served and filed a portion of her documents in a 37 page  
Book of Authorities titled “Book of Authorities II” on July 20, 2021, well after the  
June 26, 2021 deadline ordered by the Tribunal on May 10, 2021. Counsel for the  
Registrar requested an order excluding the late documents. The Appellant’s  
paralegal stated that she only received the new documents from her client over the  
weekend preceding the hearing and immediately transmitted them to the Registrar  
and the Tribunal.  
[7] The hearing adjudicator admitted the documents on the basis that the witness who  
authored them was available for questioning and granted leave to the Registrar to  
submit any reply evidence, if necessary, by July 27, 2021. Counsel for the  
Registrar was also permitted an exception from the usual prohibition against  
discussing evidence with witnesses who had already testified in order to review  
the documents in question with those two witnesses, specifically M.P. and M.M.,  
as well as a dispensation to recall one or both of those witnesses.  
Selective Participation by Telephone  
[8] The Appellant’s paralegal advised that three of her witnesses G.M., P.L.S. and  
Jozo Mamic (‘J.M.’) would be unable to call into the videoconference and  
requested a separate hearing date to participate by telephone. This request was  
denied as unnecessary. Both G.M. and P.L.S. were able to call into a separate  
teleconference line provided during the scheduled hearing dates. As J.M. was  
apparently unable to access the telephone or videoconference, the Appellant  
ultimately elected not to call him as a witness.  
Appellant’s Adjournment Request  
[9] Related to the above issue, at the beginning of the third day of the hearing, the  
Appellant’s paralegal requested an adjournment as she was unable to secure  
J.M.’s attendance as he was on vacation at that time. The hearing adjudicator  
expressed some concern that the witness had apparently not been summoned  
weeks or even months prior to the hearing date, particularly given the age of the  
file. The Appellant’s paralegal estimated that J.M. would be one of the last  
witnesses called to testify. Counsel for the Registrar was amenable to permitting  
J.M. to participate by telephone but opposed any adjournment.  
[10] The adjournment request was effectively withdrawn as J.M. subsequently agreed  
to participate by telephone. As noted above, on the sixth day of the hearing, J.M.  
remained unavailable; rather than revisit the issue of adjournment to arrange for  
his participation, the Appellant elected to close its case after the testimony of  
P.L.S.  
3
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
C. RESULT  
[11] For the following reasons, and having considered the evidence and submissions, I  
find that the Appellant has breached warranties under section 13 of the ONHWPA  
with respect to the home at 260 Farr Street, Pelham and failed to indemnify Tarion  
for resulting losses. I also find that the Registrar demonstrated that that the past  
conduct of the Appellant’s officer and director affords reasonable grounds to  
believe that the Appellant’s business undertakings will not be carried on in  
accordance with law and with integrity and honesty. Lastly, I also find that the  
Appellant’s high ratio of conciliations to enrollments with respect to one house  
demonstrates insufficient technical competence. Having considered the possibility  
of licencing with conditions, I am not satisfied that any conditions are appropriate  
to protect the public interest and I therefore direct the Registrar to carry out its  
proposed action pursuant to subsection 43(8) of the Act.  
D. LAW  
[12] Given the detailed nature of much of the evidence presented, a brief overview of  
the statutory context for the role of Tarion in the warranty process for new homes  
may be useful for the issues in this appeal, particularly as it engaged transitional  
legislation.  
[13] Tarion is a private, non-profit corporation designated by the Lieutenant Governor-  
in-Council to administer the ONHWPA. Prior to a change in legislation five months  
before the present hearing, it served as the Registrar under the Act and applied  
and enforced the Act and Regulations.  
[14] Each builder or vendor of new homes in Ontario must be licenced with the  
Registrar. The licencing process involves an applicant agreeing to standard terms,  
either through a Vendor Agreement, Builder Agreement or both, depending on a  
particular applicant’s proposed role in new home construction. It is with respect to  
this duty that the amended Notice of Proposal, dated August 17, 2020, was  
issued.  
[15] Tarion does not operate as an insurance company. Rather, its role is to ensure  
that builders comply with the statutory warranties set out in the Act. The warranties  
are those of the builder, not Tarion. The builder is also required to respond to  
warranty claims as submitted by homeowners to Tarion within certain defined time  
periods. A homeowner may ask Tarion to intervene by requesting a conciliation  
inspection only if a builder fails to complete warranty repairs in a timely manner  
and the homeowner believes that one or more warranted items have not been  
repaired or resolved within the allowed time limits.  
[16] The present proceeding related to two categories of warranty claims, specifically, a  
delayed closing claim and a claim under the 30 Day Form. With respect to the  
delayed closing claim, when a builder or a vendor sells a new home, he or she is  
required to attach an addendum or schedule to every agreement of purchase and  
4
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
sale that sets out when the closing date of the agreement will be and includes  
clear protocols with respect to extensions. If a new home buyer believes that he or  
she received the home after the date that it should have closed according to the  
addendum, then the homeowner may file a delayed closing claim with Tarion, after  
paying a required fee. Once such a claim has been filed, the builder is notified and  
has thirty days to negotiate with the homeowner to satisfy or resolve the claim.  
[17] If this negotiation is not successful, Tarion invites the builder to provide input with  
respect to his or her perspective on the conflict. A Warranty Service Analyst then  
conducts a conciliation to make a determination with respect to whether the  
homeowner’s claim is warranted and issues a Warranty Assessment Report  
(WAR). If Tarion finds that the claim was warranted, the homeowner’s fee is  
refunded.  
[18] A builder who disagrees with Tarion’s determination of warrantability or  
chargeability in a WAR may be eligible to request an arbitration under the Builder  
Arbitration Forum (‘BAF’). An arbitration request may only be made by licenced  
builders who attend the conciliation inspections and must be made within 28 days  
of receipt of the WAR. The Warranty Service Analyst also assesses whether the  
claim is chargeable. A determination that a claim is chargeable represents Tarion’s  
finding that the builder ought to have resolved an issue that led to an unnecessary  
conciliation. In that instance, Tarion settles the claim directly with the homeowner,  
writing a cheque out of its Guarantee Fund and then invoicing the builder for the  
amount paid along with a 15% administrative fee. Tarion would also invoice the  
builder for the cost of the homeowner’s refunded claim fee.  
[19] A 30 Day claim follows a similar process. The ONHWPA imposes a one year  
warranty on a wide range of defects with respect to workmanship and materials  
and any violation of the Ontario Building Code (the ‘Code’), except as proscribed  
by the Regulations. The Regulations also provide a process for a homeowner to  
make a claim within the first thirty days after the date of possession. Once the  
homeowner files a 30 Day claim, the builder has 120 days to address the items on  
the claim. This is known as the first builder repair period. After the 120 days has  
elapsed, a homeowner who is dissatisfied with the builder’s efforts to resolve the  
items on the 30 Day claim may request a conciliation inspection.  
[20] When a homeowner requests a conciliation, Tarion schedules an inspection and  
notifies the builder. This starts the second builder repair period in which the builder  
is given a further thirty days after the date the homeowner requests the conciliation  
inspection to repair or resolve all of the claim items. Unless the homeowner  
requests that the conciliation inspection be cancelled, a Warranty Services  
Representative from Tarion attends at the home, reviews the homeowner’s claims  
and issues a WAR that includes findings of warrantability or non-warrantability for  
each disputed item. The builder then has thirty days to appeal Tarion’s decision to  
the BAF.  
5
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[21] If Tarion determines that at least one item in the WAR is warranted, barring some  
specific exemptions, the conciliation will be deemed to be chargeable against the  
builder’s record. The third builder repair period commences upon to the issuance  
of the WAR if any items have been found warranted. The builder is then permitted  
a further thirty days to conduct repairs, failing which Tarion will then schedule a  
claims inspection with the homeowner. In such circumstances, the only issue to be  
determined is whether the builder has carried out repairs to those items  
determined to be warranted in the WAR. If not, Tarion will arrange to carry out the  
repairs or provide cash compensation to the homeowner from its Guarantee Fund,  
in the same process as with a delayed closing claim.  
[22] In the present case, Tarion issued the Notice of Proposal pursuant to subsection  
9(1) of the ONHWPA. However, when the present Act came into force, appeals to  
the Tribunal under the ONHWPA that commenced before February 1, 2021, such  
as the present proceeding, were continued under the Act.  
[23] Section 86.3 of the Act and section 4 of O. Reg. 630/20 provide that licencing  
proceedings before the Tribunal commenced under the ONHWPA continue as a  
proceeding under the Act. The requirement that vendors or builders be licenced is  
set out at subsection 37(1) of the Act.  
[24] The grounds for the issuance or renewal of a licence for a corporate builder are  
set out at subsection 38(1)(d) of the Act:  
38.(1) An applicant is entitled to a licence or a renewal of a licence by the  
registrar if, in the registrar’s opinion,  
(b) the applicant is a corporation and …  
(iii) the past and present conduct of its officers and  
directors, of all interested persons in respect of its  
officers and directors and of all interested persons in  
respect of the corporation affords reasonable grounds for  
belief that its business will be carried on in accordance  
with the law and with integrity and honesty, and  
(c) the applicant is not in breach of a condition of the licence, if the  
applicant is applying for a renewal of a licence;  
(d) the applicant meets the prescribed requirements, if any,  
including requirements for competency;  
[25] With respect to the ground of honesty, integrity and compliance with the law, in  
Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario) v. 751809 Ontario Inc., the  
Ontario Court of Appeal found that as a standard of proof, “reasonable grounds for  
6
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
belief” is lower than the “balance of probabilities.”1 It requires more than mere  
suspicion and an objective basis for the belief based upon compelling and credible  
information. The Court of Appeal also noted that when examining past conduct,  
the Registrar is not limited to the operation of licensee’s business and may  
consider both criminal and noncriminal conduct.2 Further, according to CS v.  
Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, there must be a nexus  
between the Appellant’s past conduct and its ability to conduct business under the  
Act serving the interests of the public.3  
[26] Subsection 39(d) of the Act provides that a licence is subject to prescribed  
conditions. “Condition of the licence” is a defined term pursuant to section 3 of O.  
Reg. 626/20, of which the following terms relate to the present matter:  
3. The following conditions are prescribed for the purpose of clause 39  
(d) of the Act:  
8. A licensee shall comply with all applicable policies, rules, and  
directions issued by the Registrar of the warranty authority and by  
the warranty authority.  
9. A licensee shall comply with all conditions, obligations, and  
requirements imposed on the licensee by the warranty authority.  
[27] Sections 4 and 5 of O. Reg. 631/20 detail the competency requirements are  
prescribed for the purposes of subsection 38(1)(e) of the Act. The provisions  
relevant to the present proceeding are:  
4. The following legislation is prescribed for the purposes of subclause 38  
(1)(c)(ii) of the Act:  
1. The Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.  
2. The Building Code Act, 1992.  
5. (1) The following competency requirements are prescribed for the  
purposes of clause 38(1)(e) of the Act:  
1. With respect to an applicant for a licence or a renewal of a  
licence, competency with respect to,  
i. business planning and management,  
1 2013 ONCA 157.  
2 Ibid. at para. 29.  
3 2019 ONSC 1652.  
7
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
ii. financial planning and management,  
iii. project management and supervision,  
iv. legal issues in housing, and  
v. customer service requirements and requirements imposed  
by the warranty authority.  
2. With respect to an applicant for a builder’s licence or a renewal  
of a builder’s licence, in addition to the competencies set out in  
paragraph 1, competency with respect to,  
i. the requirements of Ontario Regulation 332/12 (Building  
Code) made under the Building Code Act, 1992 and of  
Ontario Regulation 213/07 (Fire Code) made under the Fire  
Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, and  
ii. construction technology.  
(2) The registrar must be satisfied that each applicable competency  
requirement set out in subsection (1) is held by at least one of  
the following persons in connection with an application:  
1. The applicant.  
2. An individual identified by the applicant in the application for  
a licence or a renewal of a licence.  
[28] Lastly, pursuant to subsection 43(8) of the Act, following the hearing, the Tribunal  
may either confirm the Registrar’s proposal or substitute its own opinion:  
43.(8) If the applicant or licensee requests a hearing in accordance with  
subsection (2), the Tribunal shall hold the hearing and may, by order,  
(a) direct the registrar to carry out the registrar’s proposed action; or  
(b) substitute its opinion for that of the registrar.  
[29] In the Notice of Proposal dated August 17, 2020, Tarion proposed not to renew the  
Appellant’s licence. When the responsibility for licencing vendors and builders  
transferred from Tarion Warranty Corporation to the Home Construction  
Regulatory Authority, the Registrar maintained that position. Where the ONHWPA  
referred to registration, the present Act refers the same process as licencing.  
E. ISSUES  
[30] The Notice of Proposal initially related to the following three grounds for non-  
renewal of the Appellant’s licence:  
8
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
1. Pursuant to s. 8(2) of the Act, the Registrar finds that 1957922  
Ontario Ltd. has a record of breach of warranty and is in breach of  
the term and condition of registration. Specifically:  
a. 1957922 Ontario Ltd. has breached warranties under s. 13 of  
the Act for the home at 260 Farr Street, Pelham and failed to  
indemnify Tarion for resulting losses as set out in Schedule A  
and thereby breached the terms and conditions of registration  
prescribed by s. 1.3 and s. 1.4 of Regulation 894 under the  
Act; and  
b. 1957922 Ontario Ltd.’s officer and director, Franca Pingue-  
Gionet, has failed or refused to complete the Core  
Competency courses of study required by the Registrar and  
consented to by 1957922 Ontario Ltd. by correspondence  
dated February 9, 2018 and April 12, 2019 and thereby  
breached the terms and conditions of registration prescribed  
by s. 1.3 and s. 1.4 of Regulation 894 under the Act.  
2. Pursuant to s. 7(1)(d) of the Act, the Registrar finds that 1957922  
Ontario Ltd. does not have sufficient technical competence to  
consistently perform the warranties. Specifically:  
a. 1957922 Ontario Ltd. has demonstrated poor customer  
service and has a high ratio of 2 chargeable conciliations to 1  
possession and has thereby breached the terms and  
conditions of registration prescribed by s. 1.3 of Regulation  
894 under the Act and s. 2.1 of its Vendor Agreement with  
Tarion under s. 9(3)1 of Regulation 892 under the Act  
[31] At the second case conference held on December 1, 2020, the Registrar stated  
that it was satisfied the appellant has completed the necessary core competency  
courses of study required by the Registrar. Accordingly, the Registrar withdrew  
item 1.b. from the Notice of Proposal. However, the other two reasons outlined in  
the Notice remained unchanged as the basis of the decision to refuse to renew the  
Appellant’s licence.  
[32] Specifically, the remaining alleged grounds for refusing to renew the Appellant’s  
licence are that:  
a. The Appellant did not reimburse the Guarantee Fund as required by the  
conditions of the licence;  
b. The Appellant’s very high ratio of conciliation to enrollments with respect  
to one house demonstrates insufficient technical competence; and  
c. The conduct of F.P. affords reasonable grounds for belief that the  
Appellant will not carry on its undertakings in accordance with the law and  
9
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
with integrity and honesty. With respect to this ground for non-renewal,  
the Registrar alleged that she has acted in a threatening and intimidating  
manner towards homeowners at a conciliation inspection and that she  
has been disrespectful and aggressive towards Tarion employees,  
disregarding and disputing their advice and assistance.  
[33] The issue to be determined at the hearing was whether the Registrar  
demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that the remaining grounds for  
refusing to renew the Appellant’s licence have been met.  
F. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:  
Background and Agreement of Purchase and Sale  
[34] F.P. is the sole officer and director of the corporate Appellant. She incorporated  
the company in November 2016 and stated that it only builds new homes. The  
corporation has no employees; however, F.P. vaguely implied that she has  
occasionally enlisted her friend and contractor, P.L.S., as her agent to coordinate  
after sales service and obtain quotes.  
[35] F.P. has a degree in education and took a leave of absence from her full-time  
employment with the Niagara Catholic District School Board to start her  
construction company in 2016 but returned to her teaching position in or around  
November 2019. She also owns and operates a pizza restaurant in St. David, near  
Niagara on the Lake.  
[36] She has been involved in the construction industry building homes since 2003 and  
had been involved with Tarion since 2003 or 2004 through her uncle’s company.  
She acknowledged that she has no formal education in construction or the trades  
other than the training required by Tarion. At the hearing, she estimated that she  
has been involved in the construction of roughly twelve new homes and built  
approximately “half a dozen” homes either under her own name or that of her  
corporation over the course of her career.  
[37] On January 25, 2017, F.P. signed a Vendor Agreement with a representative of  
Tarion. That agreement contained the following terms:  
2.1 The Registrant shall diligently perform the obligations heretofore or  
hereafter imposed upon the Registrar by the Act, the Regulations,  
this Agreement and/or the Bulletins and shall indemnify and save  
Tarion harmless against all losses, claims, costs, damages and/or  
liabilities whatsoever heretofore or hereafter suffered or incurred  
by Tarion resulting from (or arising out of) any non-performance or  
inadequate performance of such obligations, in whole or in part, at  
the times, (and in the manner) as may be provided or  
contemplated by the Act, the Regulations, this Agreement and/or  
the Bulletins, provided written notice of a claim against the  
Registrant, or relating to any homes in respect of which the  
10  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
Registrant acted as Vendor (or that were enrolled by the  
Registrant) has been given to Tarion within the relevant warranty  
period(s).  
2.7 The Registrant shall pay to Tarion an administration fee equivalent  
to fifteen (15%) per cent (or such other per cent as may be  
stipulated from time to time by the Regulations) of each amount  
paid out by Tarion to any purchaser(s), homeowner(s) or third  
party contractor(s)/consultant(s) in respect of the obligations  
imposed upon the Registrant by the Act, the Regulations, this  
Agreement and/or the Bulletins.  
[38] F.P. agreed that she understood both of the above provisions and that they  
applied to her corporation as a licensee. She also agreed that the following term of  
the Agreement applied to her company’s licence with Tarion:  
3.13 Compliance with the provisions of this Agreement shall form a term  
and condition of the registration of the Registrant under the Act.  
[39] Prior to the present matter, the Appellant’s licence had never been the subject of a  
Notice of Proposal to deny renewal. F.P. testified that as of the date of the hearing,  
both the property adjacent to 260 Farr Street and a bungalow that she built in Port  
Colborne had been completed, but neither were enrolled with Tarion; the latter is a  
rental property that she uses as a model home. She agreed that 260 Farr Street  
was the first home enrolled with Tarion by the corporation.  
[40] M.P. and Andrea Tyler (‘A.T.’) purchased the single family house at 260 Farr  
Street in the Town of Pelham (the ‘Town’) from the Appellant. M.P. has no building  
experience or training in home construction and met his then real estate agent,  
R.T., at their shared workplace.  
[41] In early June 2018, M.P. and R.T. had viewed a number of new and resale homes  
in the Niagara Region when they met F.P. at the lot at 260 Farr Street, where she  
was building the basement foundation. M.P. returned with A.T. and they discussed  
the possibility of adding a basement walkout to the proposed plan for the property,  
which F.P. agreed would be feasible given the size of the lot. At her suggestion,  
the homeowners viewed her model home in Port Colborne, a bungalow similar in  
layout to the plan for 260 Farr Street.  
[42] M.P. explained that they had a strict time requirement to move into a new home as  
his mother-in-law could not stay at her current residence due to financial and  
cognitive issues. He acknowledged that while he informed R.T. of his mother-in-  
law’s medical condition, he did not advise F.P. of this issue before moving into the  
property. F.P. denied noticing any issues when interacting with A.T.’s mother  
whenever she attended at the property.  
[43] Since the foundation for the house had already been built, F.P. was confident that  
she could meet the homeownersproposed deadline for occupation. At the same  
11  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
time, given the pace of construction, to accommodate their request for a higher  
foundation, she would need them to submit an offer in comparatively short order.  
They made the offer approximately two weeks later.  
[44] On November 21, 2018, M.P.’s lawyer received a letter from the Appellant’s lawyer  
requesting an additional $20,000.00 to be paid to Tarion for the enrollment fee for  
the house. The homeowners received this letter on or about the same date. M.P.  
did not expect to incur this cost as he had assumed that the house had already  
been enrolled since the Appellant was listed with Tarion as a builder. The  
homeowners never paid the requested $20,000.00.  
[45] F.P. agreed that she posted $20,000.00 as a security deposit when she enrolled  
the property in the program. She testified that she did not believe that she was  
permitted to enroll the home with Tarion until she paid this deposit. She denied  
that 260 Farr Street was the only property that she had enrolled with Tarion and  
testified that she had paid a similar deposit for other homes. She did not clarify  
whether she referred to homes enrolled after 260 Farr Street or in relation to her  
uncle’s company.  
[46] This letter also requested confirmation on whether the homeowners intended to  
conduct a walkthrough of the property and suggested November 29 or 30, 2018 as  
potential dates for this inspection. M.P. confirmed that he and A.T. conducted the  
offered walkthrough on or about November 30, 2018. At the hearing, he described  
the house at that time as “a beautiful home other than the Code violations that still  
needed to be corrected” and confirmed that he mentioned these defects,  
particularly those related to the stairs, to F.P. during the inspection. He explained  
that he understood that the visible issues with the house represented Code  
violations, based upon a building inspector’s report provided to his lawyer shortly  
before the closing.  
The Delayed Closing  
[47] Pursuant to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the Statement of Critical  
Dates provided by Tarion, the first tentative closing date was Friday, December 3,  
2018. There was no dispute that the homeowners did not move into the house  
until Monday, December 6, 2018 and no substantial dispute that the delay was  
caused by the Appellant’s failure to obtain an occupancy permit before the original  
closing date.  
[48] On the weekend prior to the closing, the homeowners received an email from R.T.  
indicating that F.P. had advised through her lawyer that the Appellant was not  
going to close on December 3, 2018. This delay posed a significant inconvenience  
to the homeowners as A.T.’s mother-in-law’s house was subject to a conditional  
sale closing on December 3, 2018 and she was required to vacate her house as of  
that date. They were compelled to rent storage facilities for her furniture and other  
property as the moving van had been arranged for December 3, 2018 on the  
assumption that they would move her belongings directly into the new house. As  
12  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
his mother-in-law was already upset at vacating the house where she had lived for  
thirty years, this unexpected complication was very difficult for the family.  
[49] When M.P. filed his Delayed Closing/Occupancy Claim Form, he attached the  
rather laconic email sent by F.P. on Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 12:24 a.m.,  
which stated, “The inspector can only come on Tues. in am for occupancy. Thnx.”  
This came as a surprise to the homeowners as they had no prior notice that they  
would be unable to move into the house on December 3, 2018.  
[50] By contrast, F.P. repeatedly testified that throughout construction, the  
homeowners had advised her that they could move into the house well after the  
closing date as late as February or March in the following year. She stated that  
this was consistent with their pattern of causing delays during construction in  
August and September 2018 through late submission of their final plan for the  
electrical system and frequent changes to various elements of the house, including  
the ceiling in the basement.  
[51] However, she testified that when the issue of the pending closing date began to  
arise in conversations with R.T., in mid-November 2018, she contacted her lawyer  
for an update on the closing, as there could be potential issues with financing. She  
did not indicate communicating this urgency to the homeowners. Instead, she  
reviewed the architectural plan highlighted with the homeowners’ additions with  
R.T. but opted not to have her lawyer review the changes to the plan, despite an  
awareness that the small narrow walk out requested by the homeowners would  
require an engineer’s plan and approval by the Town. Both the basement walkout  
and the higher foundation were not part of the original plan and required municipal  
approval.  
[52] On Friday, November 30, 2018, an inspector from the Town attended at the  
property to assess the remaining items that required inspection before an  
occupancy permit could issue. F.P. offered extremely inconsistent evidence with  
respect to the details of that meeting. She initially testified that the inspector would  
not pass the risers on the walkout stairs as they were not sufficiently uniform in  
height and requiring further sanding. She then changed her evidence to claim that  
the stairs were passed but that the occupancy permit was not granted due to a  
problem with the plumbing in the basement, as well as another unspecified  
mechanical issue possibly related to the water heater. She stated that she was  
required to bar the top step of the back deck to prevent its use until the  
excessively high top step was reduced to the same height as the deck surface. In  
his evidence, M.P. denied that any such barrier was ever installed. F.P. then  
claimed that the front landings and walkout were passed. This evidence tends to  
conflict with Tarion’s later determinations with respect to the poor workmanship  
evident in the construction of these items.  
[53] While she claimed at the hearing that the occupancy permit was not required to  
close, this position conflicted with her own email to her lawyer on December 2,  
2018, agreeing with his assessment that the closing could not occur without the  
13  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
occupancy permit. During this same period, F.P. was in communication with her  
lawyer over scheduling the Pre-Delivery Inspection (the ‘P.D.I.’) before the now  
postponed closing. Strangely, she did not know whether the P.D.I. occurred on  
December 4, 2018 but speculated that it may have taken place in the evening or  
possibly on December 5, 2018.  
[54] The only coherent fact arising from F.P.’s meandering and fluid testimony with  
respect to the November 30, 2018 inspection was that the occupancy permit was  
not granted on that date and that since the inspector was unable to return until  
December 4, 2018, it could not be issued until then.  
[55] M.P. agreed under cross-examination that he and A.T. had “agreed” to delay the  
closing to December 5, 2018 when this delay was proposed to them in an email  
from their lawyer. However, this concession should not be viewed as consent to  
delaying the closing in general since, in the absence of an occupancy permit, the  
homeowners could not legally reside in the house until the Town issued the full  
occupancy permit.  
[56] I find that F.P.’s inconsistent and repeatedly fluctuating recollections on the  
reasons for the delayed occupancy permit falls far short of credible or reliable  
evidence. Similarly, her claim that the homeowners were indifferent to the closing  
date was never put to M.P. on cross-examination and was first introduced into  
evidence during F.P.’s direct examination. This version of events is also  
inconsistent with M.P.’s unchallenged evidence that he and A.T. made a prompt  
purchase offer to the Appellant primarily due to the urgency of moving A.T.’s  
mother into the home as soon as possible and F.P.’s assurances that she could  
meet their needs on this timeline. On the balance of probabilities, I prefer M.P.’s  
evidence on this issue and find that the homeowners expected the property to  
close on December 3, 2018 until they were informed the day before the closing  
that this would not occur. In light of M.P.’s largely uncontested evidence regarding  
the inconvenience and anxiety caused by the postponement, I reject the  
Appellant’s evidence that the homeowners had led her to reasonably believe that  
they were indifferent to a delayed closing.  
[57] As well, I find that F.P. failed to establish a causal link between earlier delays  
during construction and the Town’s refusal to issue the occupancy permit,  
particularly as on her own evidence, she was aware that the alterations to the plan  
would require municipal approval.  
[58] E.C. has been employed with Tarion since 2004 and has served as a Warranty  
Service Analyst since 2016. She completed training in the Code at Fanshawe  
College as well as extensive training with Tarion. In her present position, she  
investigates delayed closing claims, deposit claims and financial loss claims and  
estimated that she conducted approximately one hundred warranty assessments  
prior to the present matter.  
14  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[59] She testified that the statement of critical dates, attached to an agreement of  
purchase and sale, lists potential critical dates, the builder’s ability to extend those  
dates and the purchaser’s ability to terminate a purchase, as well details of the  
delayed closing warranty and the deposit protection. If purchasers believe that  
they are entitled to compensation, they can submit a claim with respect to delayed  
closing at any time to Tarion during the first year of occupancy. Homeowners may  
claim $150.00 per day to a maximum of $7,500.00 if there is a delay past the firm  
closing or occupancy date. She acknowledged that she often sees extended or  
delayed closings as these may occur for a number of reasons.  
[60] E.C. also explained that the Builder Bulletins provide information to builders with  
respect to the legislation in terms of expectations and requirements. For instance,  
when a homeowner submits a claim for delayed closing, the builder is expected to  
assess the claim by determining the amount of delayed closing compensation  
payable based upon the rules set out in the addendum to the Agreement of  
Purchase and Sale and the receipts provided by the builder within thirty days and  
may provide input to Tarion. E.C. agreed that she had discretion to extend that  
timeline on behalf of Tarion. Tarion then issues a WAR determining whether the  
claim is warranted or chargeable. If Tarion finds that the builder provided  
compensation the homeowner equal or greater to the compensation payable, then  
Tarion could make the claim non-chargeable if the homeowner still requested an  
assessment.  
[61] Builder Bulletin 46 sets out the requirements for changing a critical date by  
agreement as follows:  
The builder and purchaser may at any time after signing the  
purchase agreement, agree in writing to extend or accelerate one  
or more Critical Dates, (e.g., First Tentative Closing Date, Second  
Tentative Closing Date, Firm Closing Date or Delayed Closing  
Date), in each case to a new specified calendar date.  
The amendment must provide that it is being made voluntarily; that  
the builder and purchaser acknowledge that the purchaser has no  
obligation to sign the amendment; and that the purchase  
transaction will still be valid if the purchaser does not sign the  
amendment.  
The amendment must include a new revised Statement of Critical  
Dates.  
[62] The Appellant never revised the Statement of Critical Dates and never obtained  
the required statement that the homeowners waived compensation or accepted  
the compensation in full satisfaction of any Delayed Closing compensation  
otherwise payable by the builder. At the hearing, F.P. acknowledged that she was  
aware of these requirements at the time that the closing date was delayed, but  
15  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
after some evasion, essentially blamed her legal representatives for her  
company’s failure to comply with these provisions.  
[63] Builder Bulletin 20 also applied until February 1, 2021 when the new legislation  
came into force and included a section on how chargeability was determined and  
applied during the material time covered by this appeal. As noted above, if a  
builder disagrees with an assessment, he or she may appeal to the BAF. In the  
present case, the Appellant never commenced an appeal to the BAF with respect  
to this issue.  
[64] In their claim, the homeowners entered a calculation of four days for $600.00 total  
living expenses. If a builder does not provide at least ten days of a firm closing or  
occupancy date, then an automatic addition of ten days for insufficient notice is  
available. As a result, the homeowners claimed ten days for insufficient notice of a  
Delayed Closing/Occupancy Date at $1,500.00 for a total of $2,100.00 in delayed  
closing compensation. The homeowners attached a statement of critical dates  
from the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and occupancy permits, as well as  
some email correspondence that offered some explanation for the last minute  
delay.  
[65] On the same date, Tarion acknowledged receipt of the claim in a letter copied to  
both parties and providing information that the Appellant had until December 4,  
2019 to assess and contact the homeowner, failing which, the homeowners may  
request conciliation.  
[66] F.P. acknowledged receipt of the Tarion’s confirmation letter but testified that she  
did not receive it until an unknown date presumably later in December 2019,  
vaguely attributing the delay to unspecified issues with her mail. She stated that  
she had been dealing with M.M. on behalf of Tarion at the time and raised the  
issue in conversation. She then changed her evidence to state that she discussed  
the claim with O.F. at Tarion, then stated that she did nothing at all as she was  
waiting to hear from M.M., who she believed was upset with her for missing a  
meeting with the homeowners in November 2019. She stated that in response to  
several letters from O.F. with respect to the delayed closing, she contacted O.F.  
on an unknown date. F.P. stated that O.F. advised that the case was still open and  
that F.P. was “entitled to go there now.” F.P. summarized her emails with O.F. and  
sent them back to her for unexplained reasons in either January or February 2020.  
As the Appellant chose not to call O.F. as a witness at the hearing to clarify her  
involvement on the file or to confirm her alleged statements to F.P., I would assign  
this evidence very little probative weight.  
[67] On December 9, 2019, Tarion notified the Appellant by letter that the homeowners  
had requested conciliation and that the Appellant had until January 8, 2020 to  
submit any information or documents to support its position or to advise Tarion  
that the claim has been resolved. E.C. recalled communicating with the Appellant  
by email and by telephone and that it was F.P.’s position that the delay had been  
requested by the homeowners and that the Appellant was therefore not  
16  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
responsible for the delay. While these emails were not filed as evidence at the  
hearing, I do not find that their absence contradicted or undermined E.C.’s  
testimony since F.P.’s apparent statements in these emails were consistent with  
her position at the hearing that the homeowners had delayed the closing. As well,  
the Appellant referenced no corroborating evidence to contradict E.C.’s testimony  
that F.P. had claimed that the homeowners had requested the postponement.  
[68] E.C. requested a copy of the homeowners’ required written waiver of delay from  
the Appellant as this document was required to make an unwarranted  
assessment. However, despite allowing additional time, she never received this  
waiver from the Appellant. F.P. denied ever communicating with E.C. or that E.C.  
ever contacted her. However, as she acknowledged notification that the  
homeowners had requested conciliation, I find that if she was confused regarding  
the next step in the process, she could have and should have contacted someone  
at Tarion.  
[69] On February 9, 2020, Tarion sent a general cover letter to the homeowners  
confirming that their claim had been accepted for the following reasons:  
The vendor failed to provide 90 days’ written notice of the Second  
Tentative Closing Date to the purchaser. Therefore, the First Tentative  
Closing Date of December 3, 2018 shall for all purposes be the Firm  
Closing Date.  
The builder’s representative, Franca Pingue, sent an email to the  
purchasers on December 2, 2018: “I just spoke with Rudy and after  
some hesitation we agree with you that Wednesday, December 5th  
would be better to close as they would like it to be the same day as  
their walk threw [sic]. The only foreseeable delay is the okay from the  
region to the town for the septic. I will keep everyone posted on  
Tuesday with occupancy status after inspector leaves as I understand,  
at this point, this is required prior to closing.”  
Tarion received a copy of the Occupancy Permit from Pelham Niagara  
confirming occupancy was granted on December 4, 2018.  
The purchasers received occupancy of the home on December 6,  
2018.  
The vendor was contacted and provided their position stating the  
delays were caused by the purchaser. Tarion requested evidence from  
the vendor to support their position, however the vendor did not  
respond with supporting evidence.  
Conclusions:  
17  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
The purchasers are entitled to Delayed Closing Compensation for the  
time period between December 3, 2018 and December 6, 2018; 3  
days.  
The purchasers are entitled to an additional $1,500.00 for the vendor  
failing to provide 10 days’ notice of a delay prior to the Firm Closing  
Date.  
The purchasers are entitled to compensation in the amount of  
$1,950.00.  
[70] E.C. testified that Tarion would have sent a copy of this letter to the Appellant,  
along with information on the appeal process to BAF. She explained that Tarion’s  
computer system automatically sends a paper copy to both the homeowner and  
the builder; a builder may also receive an electronic copy depending on how the  
builder has elected to receive correspondence. Under cross-examination, she  
agreed that confirmation of this transmission was not included in the Registrar’s  
evidence. However, when E.C. offered to provide evidence that would confirm that  
the Registrar had such a document in its records generally, the Appellant’s  
paralegal refused her offer.  
[71] The Appellant’s paralegal chose not to put any specific evidence that may have  
contradicted E.C.’s evidence on this point to her, but then attempted to elicit  
evidence to the contrary from her own client in direct examination, engaging of the  
rule in Browne v. Dunn.4 In response to the Registrar’s objection, the Appellant’s  
paralegal then misrepresented the exchange, claiming that she had asked E.C. for  
the missing email, but that E.C. had responded that she was unable to provide it.  
As a result, I find that F.P.’s implied denial of any communication from the  
Registrar with respect to the process to appeal the delayed closing compensation  
should be accorded virtually no probative weight.  
[72] E.C. testified that this assessment was also found to be chargeable. The  
homeowners signed a form on February 11, 2020 accepting the above payment in  
full resolution of their delayed closing claim. On February 19, 2020, Tarion  
invoiced the Appellant for the claim, plus the 15% fee and H.S.T. E.C. testified that  
she believed that the Appellant had paid the invoice but noted that it was unusual  
for a builder not to resolve such a small claim immediately and thereby avoid a  
chargeable conciliation.  
The 30 Day Form  
[73] On December 28, 2018, the homeowners submitted their 30 Day Form. On  
January 9, 2019, Tarion sent a letter to the homeowners acknowledging receipt of  
the Form, which provided the relevant timelines for the homeowners and the  
Appellant:  
4 (1893) 6 R. 67, H.L.  
18  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
Your builder is expected to resolve the items covered under the  
warranty by May 15, 2019. Please note that there are specific  
situations to which this timeline may not apply (such as repairs to the  
exterior of your home that require suitable weather conditions). During  
this initial repair period, you should work with your builder to resolve  
the warranted items submitted on your form.  
[74] Other than seasonal items, if the Appellant failed to complete repairs or otherwise  
resolve the warranted items by May 15, 2019, the homeowners had thirty days  
between May 16, 2019 and June 14, 2019 to contact Tarion to request a  
conciliation.  
[75] The homeowners’ 30 Day Form contained the following seventeen issues:  
a. Basement: Walk up stairs to outside - poor workmanship - risers are not  
uniform - treads are too narrow - leading edge of treads don't have a  
levelled or rounds edge - no drain at bottom - loose pavers at bottom of  
stairs - not agreed upon. Builder not willing to provide builders permit.  
b. Rear deck: Risers not uniform - ledger has no flashing. Deck is over 2" ft  
in height and wood posts are not anchored to concrete - concrete pier  
depth & footing not verified - no side gussets on post and beams function.  
Builder not willing to provide builder permits.  
c. Front stairs: First stair on grade was covered - finish is rough - no hand  
railing installed.  
d. Outside grading: Not done.  
e. Outside: A/C not installed.  
f. Outside: Eaves troughs are leaking on all inside & outside seams.  
g. Outside: Parging not complete.  
h. Outside: Window wells - garage needs to be removed & stone added to  
bottom of windows wells & pipe cut according to OBC.  
i. Lower level: Missing 3 sets of interior door handles.  
j. Lower bathroom: Missing ceiling bathroom light fixture.  
k. Upstairs kitchen: Holes drilled in wrong place for handles.  
l. Kitchen upper: Unauthorized substitution of a Kenmore Elite /55/60" -  
fridge & freezer - Should be a Frigidaire 55/60" Professional series.  
m. Outside: Missing all screens for windows & doors.  
19  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
n. Survey: No updated survey - septic system location not correct on survey.  
o. Garage door: Dent in seam Double garage door.  
p. Bedroom #3: Missing folding window crank.  
q. Garage: Both windows missing folding window crank.  
[76] While M.P. agreed that A.T. had handwritten the above list on the form, both  
homeowners collaborated on its content. As a result, the hearing adjudicator  
rejected the Appellant’s submission that only A.T. could properly testify to this  
evidence. Similarly, while neither homeowner had any formal training with respect  
to the Code, like any reasonable person, both could recognize the obvious defects  
in the workmanship on the house, as confirmed by the copious photographic  
evidence submitted at the hearing. In addition, as noted at paragraph 46 above,  
the homeowners had been in possession of the building inspector’s report since  
November 30, 2018, roughly one month before they submitted the 30 Day Form.  
[77] As several of the items on the 30 Day Form were not resolved by the end of the  
initial builder repair period, the homeowners requested a conciliation.  
[78] M.P. acknowledged that several of the items were ultimately resolved, albeit not  
necessarily within the initial builder repair period. For instance, after some delays  
with contractors, the air conditioner was eventually installed. Similarly, the parging  
and the issues with the window wells were resolved, as were items i., j. and k.  
above. As for the septic system on the survey, he described the placement of this  
item as “questionable,” but evidently did not pursue the issue further. After delivery  
delays, the window screens and the window hand cranks were eventually supplied  
and installed, well after the end of the initial builder repair period.  
[79] The eavestroughs were also not repaired during the initial builder repair period. At  
the hearing, M.P. testified that they leaked quite heavily in various areas and  
trickled elsewhere. The corners were also leaking and the seams were “unsightly”  
exhibiting poor workmanship.  
[80] F.P. insisted that the homeowners wait one year before finishing the front landings  
and the walkout, stating simply that this was her practice as the land was still  
settling. Under cross-examination, she was evasive with respect to the basis for  
this statement, refusing to state whether the concrete pad was poured in a single  
piece and suggesting that the question should be put to an expert on concrete.  
She stated that she felt pressured by the homeowners to proceed with the pour as  
they wanted it completed in time for the closing date.  
[81] F.P. stated that pursuant to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale because she  
had accommodated the homeowners’ various late requests for changes to the  
plan, they “could not hold her” to imperfections and poor workmanship on the  
landings and stairs on the basement walkout.  
20  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
The July 30, 2019 Conciliation Inspection and Aftermath  
[82] At the request of the homeowners, on June 19, 2019, Tarion scheduled a  
conciliation inspection for July 30, 2019 to assess the unresolved items on the 30-  
Day Form. During the pre-conciliation builder repair period, the Appellant had until  
July 18, 2019 to resolve the items on the form that were covered by the warranty.  
During this pre-conciliation repair period, they were advised to continue to work  
with their builder to resolve the items.  
[83] M.M. has worked in the construction industry since 2003, working for various  
builders conducting pre-delivery inspections and administrative duties and for  
homeowners. She also completed training at Tarion and obtained her Building  
Code Identification Number (‘B.C.I.N.’). As of the date of the hearing, she had  
worked for Tarion for three years and four months as a Warranty Services  
Representative. Her work involves conducting inspections and writing warranty  
assessment reports. By the date of the 30 Day conciliation inspection in this  
matter, in addition to years of experience for various builders, she had completed  
over 150 inspections for Tarion.  
[84] She testified that if an item listed in a 30 Day Form is seasonal, such as a water  
test during the winter, the builder will have an extended period to resolve the  
issue. For instance, if a form is submitted between November 16 and November  
30, the builder would have until September 1 of the following year to complete the  
seasonal items. Or, if the completion of an item is simply not feasible for other  
reasons, Tarion may schedule a re-inspection at a future date for completion.  
[85] F.P. recalled that she asked P.L.S. to conduct work at the house during this period  
as the homeowners appeared to get along with him better than the other  
contractors. On June 27, 2019, she requested access to the house on July 11,  
2019 to conduct work on interior items; however, the homeowners refused this  
request.  
[86] M.M. conducted a 30 Day inspection of the homeowner’s residence on July 30,  
2019 and reviewed all of the items on their form. Both A.T. and M.P., as well as  
F.P., were present. During this inspection, M.M. took a number of photographs  
and measurements of the outstanding items, which were included in her WAR.  
She recalled that although a few of the items were in the interior, the majority of  
the issues of concern to the homeowners were on the exterior of the home.  
[87] M.P. testified that the inspection began with a discussion inside the house with  
respect to the relevant paperwork and the items listed in the 30 Day Form. They  
then went outside and examined the walk up area. He recalled that M.M.  
examined the exterior items on the Form, as well as the leak into the basement,  
followed by an inspection of the deck.  
[88] He noted that throughout the inspection, there was some degree of confrontation  
and observed that F.P. appeared “agitated” that some of the measurements of the  
21  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
disputed items did not appear to be “going her way.They then entered the house  
and examined the cupboards, the refrigerator and the door handles. In response to  
F.P.’s complaints that the homeowners had unreasonably refused access to the  
property to conduct repairs, M.M. confirmed that she was required to provide at  
least two business days’ notice before attending at the home. When F.P. accused  
the homeowners of delaying the closing, the discussion became further agitated.  
Since the parties had already finished discussing the items on the 30 Day Form  
and F.P. began to vent her annoyance over other issues, M.M. opted to terminate  
the meeting.  
[89] M.M. agreed that the discussions during the inspection were not particularly  
amicable and that there was “a lot of arguing” and raised voices commencing  
immediately upon discussion of the disputed items. The concrete staircase at the  
walkout to the basement at the rear of the home prompted the most heated  
exchange between the homeowners’ expectations and the workmanship provided  
by the Appellant. She recalled that while both sides engaged in some degree of  
bickering, F.P. was very disrespectful to the homeowners, repeatedly raising her  
voice when discussing the staircase.  
[90] When the parties went into the house, M.M. testified that the situation worsened.  
She recalled that she was standing at the kitchen island with the parties on either  
side when the topic of responsibility for the delayed closing was raised. She stated  
that F.P. became very aggressive and shouted at the homeowners, calling them  
names and swearing. M.M. testified that only F.P. engaged in profanity and name-  
calling. At one point, she began to approach the homeowners in an aggressive  
manner, causing M.M. to fear that she would physically attack them. M.M. blocked  
F.P.’s advance with her own body and suggested that the inspection should  
terminate. As Warranty Service Representatives are instructed not to make  
physical contact with others, she persuaded F.P. that it would be best if she left  
the property.  
[91] M.P. recalled that as F.P. was walking to the front door to leave, she walked  
towards A.T., yelling and pointing in her face that she was “totally disgusted.” A.T.  
told F.P. to get out of her house and M.M. repeatedly asked F.P. to leave until F.P.  
finally exited the home. When F.P. reached the landing, M.M. had to ask her to  
leave “a couple more times after that.” M.P. testified that the incident was “kind of  
scary” and “upsetting” particularly as his daughter and mother-in-law were present.  
He explained that this incident severely damaged the homeowners’ relationship  
with the Appellant and that they preferred not to allow F.P. in the house again  
unless M.M. was also present. M.P. stated however that neither he nor A.T.  
specifically denied F.P. access to the property even after this incident. While he  
testified that he reported the confrontation to Tarion, he agreed that the email  
containing this communication was not submitted at the hearing. However, since  
M.M.’s description of the event was not challenged under cross-examination, I find  
little turns on the absence of an email to another Tarion employee that would have  
largely repeated the substance of M.M.’s direct testimony.  
22  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[92] M.M. testified that she has never encountered this level of aggression at an  
inspection before and was “quite shaken” by F.P.’s conduct. While she briefly  
considered calling the police, this ultimately proved unnecessary when F.P. drove  
off the property. M.M. noted that she was unable to discuss the timeline for repairs  
at the inspection on July 30, 2019 before F.P. became belligerent towards the  
homeowners. She did not provide a description of F.P.’s conduct in the inspection  
reports as this was not appropriate to the purpose of these documents. She  
nonetheless testified that she reported this incident to her manager by telephone.  
[93] F.P. provided a differing account of the events on July 30, 2019 but agreed that  
the meeting ended a heated confrontation. She testified that she arrived early to  
the inspection with items for the house and met with M.M. When they entered the  
home, they started the inspection gathered around the dining room table. After  
M.M. described the process for the meeting, they began by inspecting the front  
steps, which F.P. described as landings. While she agreed that the landings were  
cracked, she took the position that the homeowners were searching for any  
imperfections to present to M.M.  
[94] F.P. acknowledged that when the homeowners directed her and M.M. to the  
walkout steps, there may have been bickering, but she emphasized that she  
directed most of her statements to M.M. She testified that they next inspected the  
deck and its attached stairs, providing a lengthy and meandering digression on the  
defects listed in the 30 Day Form, largely complimenting herself on her  
construction skills and claiming that M.M. conspired with her in whispered tones to  
prevent the homeowners from overhearing their plans to repair the piers under the  
deck.  
[95] When they returned to the interior of the house, she stated that M.M. listed the  
items on the Form. She stated that at that point, some “discrepancies” between  
herself and the homeowners started to arise, including their complaint over the  
substituted refrigerator. She became “very offended and hurt” as she believed that  
the homeowners were not sufficiently grateful for her goodwill gesture in agreeing  
to alter the basement ceiling from the building plan. She stated that A.T. then  
promptly asked to her leave. She stated that she was pleased to comply as she  
was “shaken up” after everything she had done for the homeowners. She recalled  
stating that she could not believe the lies” to which M.M. suggested that she stop  
speaking and ushered her out of the house, while repeating, “I’m on your side” to  
F.P. She stated that she then apologized to M.M. if she did not maintain her  
composure but emphasized that she was justifiably upset at the homeowners as  
she had been “so patient and kind” to them. She then went on to describe how  
M.P. had been effusively grateful to her for building his dream house, apparently  
during the November 30, 2018 inspection. “Demoralized” by their subsequent lack  
of appreciation, she never returned to the property.  
[96] F.P. denied that she could have intimidated A.T. when they argued in the kitchen  
because the kitchen island was very large and A.T. was “ten feet away”; she also  
denied approaching A.T. She denied calling the homeowners derogatory names or  
23  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
approaching A.T. while pointing her finger. Essentially, she took the position that  
she was blameless as she did not physically assault the homeowners or attempt to  
do so. She also denied receiving any notice from the homeowners or Tarion that  
the homeowners felt intimidated by her conduct. However, in light of the  
uncontested evidence that M.P. had requested that she refrain from attending at  
the property after this incident, I find that she would have reasonably understood  
their position if not agreed with it.  
[97] Significantly, F.P.’s alternative version of events, particularly M.M.’s alleged  
allegiance with F.P. against the homeowners, was never put to M.M. or M.P. under  
cross-examination despite her paralegal’s opportunity to do so.  
[98] On the balance of probabilities, I prefer the testimony offered by M.P. and M.M. as  
the more accurate description of the events of July 30, 2019. While F.P. attempted  
to minimize and rationalize her conduct, she ultimately did not contest their  
evidence that she bickered with the homeowners and raised her voice towards  
them when disagreements over the inspection arose. While M.P. may have had a  
potential interest in depicting F.P. as the aggressor, I find that the Appellant failed  
to explain why M.M. would have been motivated to misrepresent the events of July  
30, 2019 and none of her evidence was challenged in any meaningful manner. In  
light of M.M.’s forthright and detailed testimony regarding how disturbing she found  
F.P.’s belligerent conduct during and after the inspection, I find that F.P.’s attempt  
to depict M.M. as her covert co-conspirator against the homeowners lacked any air  
of reality. Rather, the evidence suggests that F.P. conducted herself in an  
aggressive and unprofessional manner precisely as M.M. and M.P. described, but  
believed her actions justified in response to her increasingly frustrating relationship  
with the homeowners.  
[99] Similarly, I do not find that the Appellant substantially refuted M.M.’s description of  
F.P.’s belligerent conduct following the conciliation inspection. M.M. testified that  
throughout this process, F.P. was “continually very aggressive” towards her.  
Although there was no further meeting between her, the homeowners and F.P.  
after July 30, 2019, whenever M.M. spoke to F.P. over the telephone, F.P. became  
aggressive and disrespectful, yelling and screaming” at M.M. and would “try to put  
words in [her] mouth.” As F.P. was extremely loud, M.M. would inevitably have to  
retreat to a private area to attempt to converse with her. M.M. noted that F.P.’s  
general lack of knowledge of the process appeared to frustrate her during these  
conversations resulting in numerous questions and emails over the same issues  
“over and over and over again” also overwhelming M.M. with emails asking the  
same questions. M.M. did not know if F.P. sought to obtain a different answer or  
simply did not understand the original information; however, it was clear to M.M.  
that F.P. had very little understanding of the process. For instance, she could not  
comprehend the time limitations for builder repair periods or why she was not  
permitted in the home to complete repairs prior to or past the claim inspection  
despite M.M.’s best efforts to explain these concepts to her.  
24  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[100] Eventually, M.M. asked F.P. to cease communicating with her by phone as these  
conversations were not productive given her abusive conduct. While she  
requested that F.P. contact her by email, this too proved counterproductive as F.P.  
would bombard her with emails, often three minutes apart for hours at a time,  
totalling between thirty to forty emails in a given day. This would interfere with  
M.M.’s ability to work on other files. Although she suggested that F.P. summarize  
all of her questions in one collective email, this never occurred. Although M.M.  
offered to meet with F.P. in public place, F.P. refused, demanding to meet in a  
private location of her choosing. In light of F.P.’s aggressive conduct, M.M. did not  
feel comfortable meeting her in an unfamiliar area such as an empty house or  
office as F.P. suggested, particularly as F.P. intended to bring her own “witness” to  
these proposed meetings.  
[101] F.P. denied the allegation that she was aggressive and disrespectful to Tarion  
employees and speculated that they were confused. In response to the allegation  
that she disregarded their advice, her responses were the product of excessive  
leading by her representative. She agreed that she was “almost too assertive” as  
she believed that the Tarion employees lacked the expertise to answer her  
questions. She demanded that they respond to each “in line,” meaning that she  
expected them to provide itemized responses to every item in each of her queries.  
She took the position that any response that fell short of these criteria did not  
qualify as a satisfactory response.  
The August 7, 2019 Warranty Assessment Report  
[102] On August 7, 2019, Tarion sent the resulting WAR to the Appellant with a  
summary of the items found warranted during the inspection. The attached letter  
provided the following information with respect to timelines for repairs and as well  
as information on appeals to BAF:  
Warranted Items  
If we have assessed an item as warranted, you are required to resolve  
that item by September 6, 2019 (or by the date that may be indicated  
in the report for a particular item). We will contact the owner of the  
home at the end of this post-conciliation repair period to confirm that  
warranted items have been resolved.  
Chargeability  
This conciliation is Non Chargeable for the following reason: No  
Warranted Items .  
Builder Arbitration Forum  
25  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
If you disagree with Tarion’s assessment, you may be able to  
challenge it at the Builder Arbitration Forum, as set out in Builder  
Bulletin 41R. To do so, you must submit an Arbitration Application  
Package to Tarion, with an administration fee of $750 plus HST, by  
September 12, 2019. Builder Bulletin 41R, the Arbitration Application  
Package and the BAF Rules can be found on our website.  
[Emphasis in original]  
[103] M.M. ultimately found two of the interior items not warranted. The balance were  
exterior seasonal items and therefore not assessed at the inspection on July 30,  
2019 due to “unsuitable weather conditions,allowing the Appellant to resolve  
them by September 1, 2019. She also found the issue with the septic system not  
warranted as it related a contractual issue beyond the scope of the statutory  
warranties. Similarly, she found that the model of refrigerator supplied was “of  
equal quality and therefore an allowable substitution.”  
[104] Although F.P. took the position that the WAR had vindicated her since none of the  
items had been deemed warranted, it should be noted assessment of these items  
had been deferred due to their seasonal status, rather than evaluated on the  
merits of the homeowners’ complaints. In any event, if the seasonal items were not  
resolved by the listed deadline, the homeowners could request a seasonal  
inspection. M.M. explained that, as a consequence, there would have been  
nothing in the WAR for the Appellant to challenge at the BAF.  
The Seasonal Builder Repair Period  
[105] On September 13, 2019, Tarion sent the homeowners a letter advising that it had  
scheduled a second conciliation inspection for November 14, 2019 to assess the  
seasonal items on the 30-Day Form:  
Pre-Conciliation Builder Repair Period  
Your builder has until July 18, 2019 to resolve the seasonal items on  
your form that are covered by the warranty. During this pre-conciliation  
repair period, you should continue to work with your builder to resolve  
the items. [Emphasis in original]  
[106] At the hearing, there was no dispute that the July 18, 2019 deadline above was an  
error and F.P. immediately recognized it as such, recalling that she found this date  
“beyond weird” when she read the letter. However, while she stated that she  
corresponded with O.F. at Tarion by email possibly after receiving the letter, she  
did not clarify whether she inquired with respect to the correct deadline for the  
seasonal repairs. M.M. explained that these letters are automatically generated by  
Tarion’s system and that the July 18, 2019 deadline incorrectly related to the  
earlier letter generated on June 19, 2019 in relation to the July 30, 2019  
conciliation inspection.  
26  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
The November 14, 2019 Conciliation Inspection  
[107] M.M. attended at the November 14, 2019 inspection with her colleague, T.S. She  
explained that she asked T.S. to accompany her to the inspection since in light of  
F.P.’s past behaviour, she did not feel comfortable attending at the house by  
herself. However, as F.P. did not attend the inspection, M.M. and T.S. reviewed all  
of the items together with the homeowners. In addition, as T.S. is a senior  
Warranty Service Representative, he has extensive knowledge of the Code,  
expertise that she believed would be helpful given the serious defects evident at  
the property.  
[108] M.M. recalled that F.P. had advised her after this inspection that she was ill;  
however, she denied any prior notice of her absence. This evidence was not  
challenged under cross-examination. By contrast, F.P. testified that she had  
somehow “expressed” this to M.M. shortly before the inspection by email and then  
by telephone, apparently to M.M.’s voicemail after the email was returned  
undelivered. Under cross-examination, she confirmed that she was not teaching at  
the time and therefore was not unable to attend the inspection due to employment  
obligations.  
[109] T.S. has been an employee of Tarion for over twenty years and currently serves  
as a Senior Warranty Services Representative, a position he has occupied for  
approximately ten years. In addition to attending at the November 14, 2019  
inspection, he ultimately assumed carriage of the file with respect to the leaking  
eavestroughs. In terms of education, he has been certified as an engineering  
technologist since 1984 and has passed ministry examinations for the Code and is  
registered with the Ministry as a designer. He has also completed in-house training  
with Tarion for defect recognition and claims resolution.  
[110] M.M. and T.S. found that the basement stairs to the outside exhibited poor  
workmanship as the risers were not uniform. M.M. confirmed that she personally  
assessed this item and explained at the hearing that the risers on the concrete  
walk up stairs to the exterior represented a serious safety risk as someone falling  
on these stairs could be severely injured or die. T.S. took several photographs of a  
number of these risers with a tape measure showing the varying heights. This item  
was warranted.  
[111] F.P. agreed that some the risers were not in compliance with Code, but stated that  
it would have only represented a breach of the 30 Day warranty “if they noticed it,”  
apparently referring to the homeowners. When asked if she failed to correct the  
risers at the property by September 1, 2019, she evaded the question and offered  
rather nebulous testimony that the building inspector had passed this item in part  
on an unspecified date, possibly referring to November 30, 2018.  
[112] She was also evasive with respect to whether there was a single handrail installed  
on the exterior walkout stairs, claiming that she and the homeowners had agreed  
to place this item “off to the side” but ultimately agreed with M.M.’s finding that only  
27  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
a single handrailing had been installed. With respect to the missing handrail, she  
declined to state whether this was resolved by September 1, 2019, instead  
attributing responsibility to P.L.S. and alleging that the homeowners did not want  
this item and obstructed its installation.  
[113] The related allegation that the treads were too narrow and that the leading edge of  
treads did not have a levelled or rounds edge was not assessed. With respect to  
this issue, F.P. was evasive and vaguely disagreed that they were in violation of  
the Code, possibly referring instead to the risers at the front of the house.  
[114] With respect to the drainage issue at the bottom of the basement walkout stairs,  
some brief background is needed. On April 14, 2019, A.T. had notified the  
Appellant by email that the basement doors leading to the walkout stairs were  
leaking. On the same date, F.P. responded that she “must have forgotten to seal  
the door where it meets the concrete.At the hearing, she suggested that the  
homeowners may have poured water on their own basement floor to discredit her  
but “gave them the benefit of the doubt” and stated that she would have J.M.  
attend to this issue when he returned to seal the eavestroughs.  
[115] In the same email exchange, she denied that Tarion required builders to provide  
“reasonable notice” for the arrival of trades as suggested by A.T., a policy  
mandated in Builder Bulletin 20. She offered no cogent explanation for her  
departure from this policy, stating only that she “has her reasons” for doing so.  
[116] This issue was apparently not resolved since on July 21, 2019, M.P. sent Tarion  
several photographs of water pooled on the basement floor with an explanatory  
email stating that the door leaked during heaving rainfall and that the caulking  
applied by the Appellant on July 11, 2019 had not resolved the issue.  
[117] In the homeowners’ photographs, interlocking brick is visible outside the glass  
double doors at the bottom of the small landing immediately outside the basement.  
M.P. testified that the drain for this recessed area was covered by the brickwork,  
causing collected water to drain into the house instead of away from the dwelling.  
A.T. had taken a number of similar photographs of the same recurring issue and  
sent them to Tarion in a separate email on July 30, 2019.  
[118] During the inspection on November 14, 2019, although M.M. and T.S. discovered  
a drain in the landing, they confirmed that it had been covered and blocked by  
interlocked paver stones. A photograph taken by T.S. showed a paver stone  
removed by M.P. with the drain for the landing underneath. Wooden shims had  
been placed between the paver stones and the concrete pad, apparently to permit  
water flow under the stones. T.S. noted that the addition of these rudimentary  
supports and the paver stones at the base of the stairwell served to exacerbate  
the variations in the riser heights above and complicated potential maintenance to  
the drainage system.  
28  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[119] The homeowners did not explicitly include the pooling issue in the 30-Day Form  
because the form was submitted in December and the issue did not become  
apparent until the outdoor temperature rose the following spring and rainfall  
entered the house. M.P. clarified that the listed issue of drainage in the 30 Day  
Form directly related to the later pooling. M.M. explained that because she and  
T.S. determined that this constituted a safety issue, they were required to include it  
in the WAR. T.S. also measured the steps leading to the walk out basement  
entrance and found that the substantial variations in the heights of the risers  
violated Code requirements.  
[120] While the substitution of pavers for the concrete pad in the Agreement of Purchase  
and Sale was not found warranted, because the pavers were loose and not  
secured to the substrate below, this item was warranted. As noted in the report,  
“the warrantability of this claim refers only to the loose pavers.” F.P. disagreed that  
this item should have been warranted and took the position that the mere  
presence of the drain under the pavers was sufficient and denied that the pavers  
had been loose. She did not call any evidence to support her disagreement with  
this aspect of the report.  
[121] F.P. explained that she had offered to allow the homeowners to negotiate directly  
with her suppliers in order to expedite the repairs. However, when they appeared  
to cherry-pick who could attend at the house, she began to suspect that they  
would rather receive a cash settlement from Tarion than actually resolve the  
issues on the 30 Day Form. For example, she recalled an incident when the  
homeowners asked P.L.S. to leave the property, thereby frustrating her ability to  
address the leaking issue in the basement. She advised them that they should  
cooperate with her efforts to address this emergency issue to prevent mould or  
further damage to the home. She testified that the leaking issue and the drain  
blockage were eventually resolved after several instances of refused access to  
P.L.S.  
[122] Because the garage door was too narrow for the homeowners’ mother-in-law’s  
wheelchair to pass, the homeowners were compelled to rely entirely on access  
through the stairs leading to the front door, the first step for which M.P. described  
as “too treacherous to use.” The state of the stairs also presented a safety and  
liability issue as homecare workers attend at the house on a routine basis. F.P.  
disputed the use of the term “front stairs” as she called them “landings” but did not  
substantively dispute that she was aware of the identity of the item in question.  
She was evasive however with respect to the accuracy of Tarion’s assessment  
that this item was defective.  
[123] The risers on the stairs to the rear deck were also not uniform as confirmed by the  
photographic evidence. T.S. testified that although they discovered substantial  
variation in the heights of the risers, unlike the steps to the basement, these  
disparities fell within the range permitted by the Code. As a result, that issue was  
found not warranted.  
29  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[124] However, as noted at paragraph 75(b) above, there was a second component to  
the homeowners’ claim with respect to this item, specifically that the ledger lacked  
flashing. T.S. confirmed that although flashing had been installed overhanging the  
concrete foundation immediately outside the deck area, this protective covering  
was missing under the deck. In the photographic evidence, the building wrapping  
is visible protruding from under the wood and is not sealed, terminated or flashed  
out over the foundation. This aspect of the claim was therefore warranted.  
[125] On November 14, 2019, neither M.M. nor T.S. were able to climb under the deck  
to inspect the defects underneath due to unsafe weather conditions, specifically  
snow and ice on the ground as well open excavation around the piers under the  
stairs. As a result, although they were able to view and photograph the area from  
the exterior, they asked the homeowners to take some measurements under the  
deck once the weather improved. On November 19, 2019, M.P. emailed several  
photographs to M.M., as well as a text listing of the requested measurements. T.S.  
confirmed that this photographic evidence was taken into account when Tarion  
issued the WAR and that it corresponded with his own visual inspection of the  
deck from the outside during the inspection. Although he could see the exposed  
building wrap from the exterior, the other issues were not visible from his vantage  
point outside the structure on the day of the inspection.  
[126] Photographs taken by M.P. and sent to Tarion confirmed that although the support  
beam under the center of the deck was thirteen feet in length, it does not extend  
the full sixteen feet of the deck or support the two joists nearest to the foundation  
wall. T.S. concluded that the lumber used for the beam was not sized to its  
application. There were also no fasteners attaching the ledger board to the frame  
of the house above. While the deck structure may have been anchored by small  
deck screws, T.S. testified that this would be inadequate to support the weight,  
compared to the large bolts usually employed. These items were warranted.  
[127] Similarly, T.S. noted that there were no side gussets on the post and beams and  
no brackets attaching the beam to the support post. A number of shims were  
inserted into a significant space between one of the posts and the beam; another  
post was not attached to the beam at all. Both posts are also considerably off  
centre from where they should contact the beam and set on the corner of their  
respective concrete piers. As there was insufficient support for the deck, T.S.  
found that this represented a serious structural defect. Similarly, the middle  
vertical support beams was cracked from the point where it met the joist via an  
inserted shim and there was no flashing under the deck to run water away or any  
bolts into the ledger that attaches the deck structure to the foundation wall. These  
items were warranted.  
[128] Although the homeowners alleged in their 30 Day Form that the pier depth was not  
verified, this issue formed no part of the WAR. T.S. recalled that excavation  
subsequently confirmed that the piers were properly installed, although that  
assessment was not conducted by Tarion. M.P. denied that he and the Appellant  
had entered into an agreement to replace the deck.  
30  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[129] On the front stairs, the first stair on the landing was covered by gravel. However,  
as the report stated, “the Builder has until July 10, 2020 to complete the Special  
Seasonal items,” including issues related to grading. However, there was also a  
rough finish to the front concrete landings from inconsistent and messy broom  
finishing:  
The second part of the claim is the rough finish on the front concrete  
landings. Tarion observed and measured the areas of concern. The  
landings had rough finish, especially on the edges and closest to the  
risers. The landings were also bowed on the edges of the treads and  
had uneven risers. The left to right difference in height was  
approximately 25 mm. It is Tarion's position that this constitutes a  
defect. As a result, this part of the claim has been deemed warranted.  
[130] The stairs were uneven in excess of allowable amounts and no hand railing had  
been installed contrary to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. T.S. noted a curve  
to the concrete steps suggesting that the forming for the concrete was not  
executed properly but acknowledged that a uniformly straight line may have been  
difficult to maintain given the width of the steps. These items were warranted. M.P.  
noted that as of the date of the hearing, the grading had still not been completed.  
However, he stated that the homeowners intended to address this issue  
themselves without Tarion’s assistance.  
[131] Two other items were not separately assessed on November 14, 2019.  
Specifically, the homeowners alleged that the stair treads above were too narrow  
and that their leading edges lacked a levelled or rounded edge was covered by the  
issue described at paragraph 75(a) above. Although the details section of the  
report stated that “A warranty assessment was not made because the owner  
withdrew this item,” M.M. explained that this was the only option available in a  
drop-down menu to mark this issue as not assessed and that the homeowners had  
not actually withdrawn the item.  
[132] The leaking eavestroughs could not be assessed through the necessary water test  
on the date of inspection due to the freezing weather and snowfall. This item  
required additional information before a warranty assessment could be made.  
Also, as this was a seasonal item, the Appellant had until September 1, 2020 to  
complete it. At the hearing, M.M. explained that this deadline was derived from the  
original WAR issued on August 17, 2019.  
The November 26, 2019 WAR  
[133] On November 26, 2019, Tarion issued the resulting WAR that described the  
various items found to be warranted and not warranted from the November 14,  
2019 inspection. The attached assessment summary detailed the warranted items  
as serious examples of poor workmanship and non-compliance with the Code. A  
letter attached to the Appellant’s copy of the WAR included deadlines to complete  
31  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
repairs on the warranted items as well as information with respect to appeals to  
BAF:  
Warranted Items  
If we have assessed an item as warranted, you are required to resolve  
that item by January 6, 2020 (or by the date that may be indicated in  
the report for a particular item). We will contact the owner of the home  
at the end of this post-conciliation repair period to confirm that  
warranted items have been resolved.  
Builder Arbitration Forum  
If you disagree with Tarion’s assessment, you may be able to  
challenge it at the Builder Arbitration Forum, as set out in Builder  
Bulletin 41R. To do so, you must submit an Arbitration Application  
Package to Tarion, with an administration fee of $750 plus HST, by .  
Builder Bulletin 41R, the Arbitration Application Package and the BAF  
Rules can be found on our website.  
[Emphasis in original]  
[134] Under cross examination, both T.S. and M.M. agreed that the deadline for appeals  
to BAF was missing from the latter paragraph and that this was an error. The  
reported noted that the builder was not present at this inspection. Although F.P.  
repeatedly emphasized that she had asked Tarion to send all notices in hardcopy  
to her by regular mail, she did not substantively dispute receipt of any of their  
communications, including the November 26, 2019 WAR. Under cross-  
examination, she acknowledged receipt of this document and that she would have  
seen the missing deadline above.  
[135] F.P. stated that after the inspection, M.M. contacted her upset that she had not  
attended. She testified that M.M. stated that she had missed her message and  
would contact her later to review the results of the inspection with her. She stated  
that M.M. urged her not to attend at the property in the interim, a statement  
seemingly at odds with her claim that M.M. was upset at her absence, itself a  
claim in conflict with M.M.’s own evidence and challenged under cross-  
examination. F.P. then claimed that she never heard from M.M. again.  
[136] As she was regularly corresponding with O.F., F.P. was unconcerned that M.M.  
had not contacted her with respect to the November 2019 WAR. Eventually, she  
contacted O.F. with respect to numerous invoices received, which she presumed  
related to the delayed closing. While she was apparently aware that M.M. had  
carriage of the file, she preferred to communicate with O.F. as she believed that  
O.F. was “very compassionate” to her and had access to the file. Her self-serving  
hearsay that O.F. was strongly aligned to her interests should be accorded very  
32  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
little weight since as noted above, O.F. was not called to testify at the hearing and  
none of these communications were submitted in writing as exhibits at the hearing.  
In any event, the evidence indicates that despite her knowledge that of the  
conciliation inspection on November 14, 2019, she did not exercise appropriate  
diligence in obtaining the results of the report in order to effect repairs within a  
reasonable period following its issuance.  
[137] Similarly, although F.P. acknowledged that she had a basic understanding of the  
role of the BAF, she opted not to pursue this option or inquire with respect to the  
missing date as she believed to do so would have been premature. She added  
that she assumed that the paragraph referencing BAF was simply boilerplate that  
Tarion inserted in all of its notices.  
[138] Pursuant to the report, the Appellant had until July 10, 2020 to resolve the issue  
with the grading as this was a special seasonal item. M.M. explained that this was  
a chargeable conciliation inspection as there was no exception to chargeability. As  
a result, Tarion invoiced the Appellant for the conciliation. M.M. stated that,  
according to the Vendor Builder Invoice History, the Appellant had paid that  
invoice.  
The Claim Inspection  
[139] On January 10, 2020, Tarion sent a letter to the homeowners and the Appellant  
advising that Tarion had scheduled a claim inspection for January 22, 2020. F.P.  
contacted M.M. to advised that she was not aware that the WAR had been issued  
or that the subsequent builder repair period had expired. Several telephone and  
email conversations followed in which F.P. expressed confusion over the purpose  
of the claim inspection and alleged that she did not receive the WAR. However,  
M.M. informed her during these communications that Tarion had confirmation that  
the WAR had been issued to the Appellant’s email on file. There was no evidence  
that this email was returned as undeliverable.  
[140] Before the claim inspection, F.P. advised M.M. that the homeowners had denied  
her access to the property to conduct repairs. As a result, on January 21, 2020,  
M.M. asked her to provide written documentation of this denial. M.M. testified that  
the Appellant did not provide the requested documents.  
[141] On January 21, 2020, F.P. contacted M.M. by email, requesting additional time to  
correct the outstanding issues from the conciliation inspection to protect her public  
image as a builder. At the hearing, she explained that she viewed her interaction  
with the homeowners as a unique situation that merited additional time for  
resolution given the multiple times the homeowners had denied her contractors  
access to the property. M.M. denied the request for the extension. She claimed  
that M.M. recommended that she make a monetary offer to the homeowners,  
preferably at a rate higher than her own costs. This “advice” was not documented  
in any of the emails submitted at the hearing and not put to M.M. under cross-  
examination. However, on the same date, M.M. advised F.P. by email that the  
33  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
homeowners had refused her settlement offer and were not interested in another  
offer. Instead, they intended to proceed with the claim inspection process.  
[142] M.M., M.P. and two contractors attended at the claim inspection on January 22,  
2020. As the homeowners had requested that F.P. not be present at the  
inspection, she did not attend. However, through discussions with F.P. prior to this  
inspection, there was no dispute that the items listed in the WAR were not  
completed; as a result, Tarion retained the contractors to provide quotes on the  
work to be done. To that end, Service1 Enterprise Inc. provided a quote on  
February 24, 2020 for $77,100.00 plus H.S.T. to repair the warranted items on the  
WAR and found not completed at the claim inspection. Similarly, Unlimited  
Building Solutions (‘U.B.S.’) provided an estimate on the same day for the same  
work in the amount of $68,434.00 plus H.S.T. An internal Tarion estimate provided  
by inhouse experts provided an estimate of $88,579.35 plus HST.  
[143] F.P. acknowledged that she received both of the above third party quotes but  
dismissed them as inflated in scope and alleged that they contained various  
unspecified errors with respect to measurements and quantities of materials used.  
She speculated that she would have raised these alleged errors with M.M. and  
possibly T.S., but referenced no communications to support this assumption.  
[144] After she did not receive a response agreeing with her assessment and M.M.  
asked her to stop consulting with O.F. on the file, F.P. escalated the issue to  
someone she believed to be M.M.’s superior, possibly T.S. She testified that when  
someone asked her for details on the errors in the quotes, she stated that she  
submitted an itemized list of the improper items to this person, again possibly T.S.  
She stated that no one responded to this document. She also claimed that she  
had proposed various alternatives to the work contemplated by Tarion’s quotes but  
could not proceed with the construction as she received no response. She agreed  
that she did not have any agreements with the homeowners to proceed with her  
proposed alterations.  
[145] She also stated that M.M. asked her to generate quotes for the same work  
prompting her to research the appropriate costs through unspecified authorities in  
the industry and information on the internet. She then provided extremely vague  
testimony with respect to her attendance at a meeting on an unknown date with  
various named individuals apparently employed by Tarion, but whose relationship  
to this matter was never explained. However, on her own evidence, vague though  
it was, the other attendees at this meeting did not accede to F.P.’s requests and  
terminated the meeting when she became overly aggressive and attempted to  
dominate the discussion. They later declined to respond to her demands for an  
itemized response to her review of Tarion’s quote.  
[146] Significantly, the Appellant’s paralegal chose not to ask either M.M. or T.S. any  
questions about this evidence, thereby failing to resolve the multiple ambiguities in  
F.P.’s testimony.  
34  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[147] On April 6, 2020, Tarion issued a claim resolution and release document with  
respect to a cash settlement to the homeowners for the unresolved items in the  
amount of $73,100.00. This amount was determined by an analysis of the work to  
be completed and the best estimate for the project. The settlement resolved all of  
the uncompleted items in the WAR and the claim inspection report. Tarion then  
invoiced the Appellant for this above amount offered and accepted by the  
homeowners, plus a 15% administration fee and H.S.T. for a total of $85,490.45.  
According to the Vendor Builder Invoice History, the Appellant has paid  
$15,990.01 of this invoice, leaving an outstanding balance of $69,500.44. M.P.  
confirmed that he and A.T. received this payment from Tarion.  
[148] F.P. did not deny that her deposit and some interest had been applied to the  
invoices sent to the Appellant with respect to the property. She testified that she  
paid an additional amount to O.F. in respect of the amount charged for two days  
for the delayed closing. Although she offered no documentary evidence to support  
this claim, counsel for the Registrar agreed that the invoice history indicated that a  
payment received in February 2020 tended to support her testimony on this point.  
While refusing to agree that according to Tarion, she still owed $69,500.44 with  
respect to 260 Farr Street, she testified that she had calculated an alternative  
amount $25,000.00 based upon her own subjective and substantially more  
favourable assessment of the cost to replace items at the property that she  
believed did not require replacement.  
[149] Significantly, even putting aside the fact that no provision in the Act, the  
Regulations or the Vendor Agreement permitted the Appellant to unilaterally  
substitute her own accounting for the balance outstanding, as of the date of the  
hearing, she had not paid even this alternative amount to indemnify Tarion.  
[150] As the issue with the leaking eavestroughs issue was not resolved at the  
November 14, 2019 inspection, this issue was rescheduled to a later inspection.  
Both T.S. and M.P. confirmed that the claim settlement did not include the costs to  
resolve this issue.  
Access to the Property  
[151] Throughout the hearing, F.P. took the position that her efforts to resolve the issues  
on the 30 Day Form were routinely impeded by the homeowners’ repeated  
refusals to allow access to the property, thereby preventing her from resolving the  
defects in a timely manner. Last minute cancellations often posed difficulties as  
larger suppliers were already their way to the house by the time that F.P. received  
notice from the homeowners that they intended to refuse access to the property.  
As well, she explained that companies often could not dedicate a full day to  
accommodate the narrow windows for delivery specified by the homeowners  
during the week.  
[152] M.P. recalled that although the homeowners had requested that F.P. give them  
two days’ notice and that workers attend during normal business hours, often  
35  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
workers would show up without notice or the homeowners’ permission to be on the  
property. This resulted in inconveniences as the homeowners needed to arrange  
for a support person to stay with A.T.’s mother in case she became anxious over  
the contractors’ presence and construction noise. He recalled that the Appellant  
often made demands for immediate access in the last days before a critical date  
such as a scheduled inspection.  
[153] After several incidents of refused access, on May 23, 2019, F.P. documented the  
ongoing access issues to the property in an email to M.P., copied to Tarion. In this  
email, she noted that one of the workers had reported that M.P. had used profanity  
to him. At the hearing, she confirmed that the worker in question was G.M.  
[154] G.M. has known F.P. for three or four years, having met her at her pizza  
restaurant in St. David. He recalled that she not only owned but worked at this  
restaurant and had done so in early 2019 and continued to do so to the date of the  
hearing. He picked up various materials for F.P. and delivered them to the  
construction site at 260 Farr Street, worked on the cement stairs at the back and  
the front stairs at the front of the house, as well as some painting and clean-up  
work. He did so in the capacity as a friend rather than as an employee of the  
Appellant and had no role in coordinating customer service.  
[155] He estimated that he conducted work at the property between thirty and forty times  
over a six month period, including two or three times when he was turned away by  
the homeowners. It was his understanding that he was turned away as it was  
inconvenient for him to attend on those occasions. He recalled that M.P. would  
inform him that his presence was not expected and would ask why he had  
attended. He recalled speaking with M.P. on May 17, 2019 in the course of picking  
up window screens from the property to deliver them somewhere else and testified  
that M.P. said to him, “Franca doesn’t know what the f*** she is doing; she should  
learn her job.” Not wanting to engage in a confrontation, he left and delivered the  
items to F.P., mentioning what had just occurred.  
[156] P.L.S. described a similar experience with the homeowners. He installed tiles in  
the bathrooms and conducted parging around the house and the stairwell at the  
property in 2018 and 2019 as a contractor for the Appellant. With respect to the  
homeowners, he mostly dealt with M.P. and occasionally with A.T. He recalled  
being told to leave the property as he was not allowed to be at the property due to  
what he assumed was a disagreement with the Appellant. While he agreed that  
their conduct was somewhat aggressive, when this occurred, he respected their  
wishes and departed. He recalled no other problems with this project.  
[157] F.P. emphasized that her May 23, 2019 email to M.P. did not resolve the ongoing  
issues as the homeowners continued to refuse access to the property, as  
confirmed by additional emails from late May to mid-June 2019. For example, on  
June 18, 2019, A.T. accused F.P. of harbouring an unknown agenda in attempting  
to gain access to the home to address minor issues when more urgent items  
remained unresolved. F.P. interpreted this allegation as a stalling tactic on the part  
36  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
of the homeowners. On the same date, A.T. emailed F.P. to advise that while the  
homeowners would allow the window supplier access to the home as scheduled,  
they would not permit F.P. to attend on the advice of Tarion, “due to your  
behaviour on previous visits to our home and your propensity for fabricating  
accusations.”  
[158] However, the homeowners’ insistence on two business days notice was not an  
arbitrary stipulation, but derived from the larger customer service policy in Builder  
Bulletin 20, which states that Tarion’s expectations of conduct to apply to all  
interactions between builders and homeowners. These expectations include the  
following:  
a. A builder (and its trades) is expected to act in a respectful, courteous and  
cooperative manner in all aspects of the claims process.  
b. A builder is expected to have a system to track and verify that all the  
items listed on the Warranty Form have been resolved.  
c. A builder is responsible for paying attention to a claim and providing a  
resolution in a timely manner. If a builder consistently performs repairs at  
the last minute, it may have an impact on future licensing considerations,  
including prescribing mandatory customer service training.  
d. A builder is expected to provide details of proposed repairs in a timely  
manner, if requested by the homeowner, in advance of the conciliation.  
e. A builder should be fair and reasonable in scheduling repairs and reliable  
in terms of following up on the agreed to dates and times. Most  
homeowners have to book time off work to accommodate the scheduling  
arrangements. A minimum period of two (2) business days’ notice should  
be provided to homeowners when scheduling repairs.  
[159] As the Vendor Agreement incorporates the Builder Bulletins into its terms and  
conditions, the above requirements form provisions of the Appellant’s duties as a  
Tarion licensee. While F.P. agreed that these policies applied to all builders  
licenced with Tarion including her own company, she took the position that the  
notice requirements did not necessarily apply in the case of perceived  
emergencies. She offered no authority for this alleged exemption. Ironically, in her  
own example of an emergency repair with respect to the basement leak, she did  
not send her contractor to the property until nine days after A.T.’s notification.  
[160] In the same bulletin, Tarion imposes expectations on homeowners, including the  
following:  
a. A homeowner will facilitate a more favourable resolution by allowing a  
builder (and its trades, suppliers, subcontractors) reasonable access to  
the home during business hours (Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00  
p.m.) to investigate and remedy defects.  
37  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[161] When asked whether it would be reasonable for a homeowner to insist upon  
access during business hours, she replied that this was “a matter of opinion” and  
that a contractor’s busy schedule should take priority. Specifically, she stated that  
for a large company such as JELD-WEN, the window supplier, it was “unheard of”  
for the homeowners to expect deliveries only when they were home.  
[162] The homeowners were concerned over delays particularly with respect to the  
drainage issues and problems with the stairs that impeded access to the house.  
However, despite M.M.’s confirmation to F.P. at the July 30, 2019 inspection that  
the Appellant was indeed required to provide two business days notice before  
attending at the property to conduct work, M.P. testified that occasionally, he and  
A.T. would consent to late notice, but would at other times return to the house, find  
workers present and request that they leave.  
[163] Their insistence upon advance notice of service calls and deliveries was motivated  
by more than a mere robotic adherence to Tarion’s protocol. Typically, while the  
homeowners were at work during the day, A.T.’s mother would be alone in the  
house. She had a “health button” that she could press if she required assistance  
after a fall or some other emergency. When A.T. left work to attend to her mother,  
she occasionally found workers at the house and told them to leave as they were  
not scheduled to attend on that date. While G.M. and P.L.S. both interacted with  
A.T.’s mother and did not perceive any symptoms of her dementia, M.P.  
emphasized that his mother-in-law often became upset and frightened when  
workers attended at the house without notice and the homeowners were unable to  
prepare her for their presence. M.P. estimated that this occurred on four or five  
occasions.  
[164] Although the Appellant’s evidence of contractors being refused access to the  
property was generally uncontested, the evidence indicated that these  
inconveniences would not have occurred so frequently if at all if F.P. had simply  
cooperated with the homeowners by providing proper notice. By failing to respect  
the homeowners’ requests to accommodate A.T.’s mother, F.P. prioritized her own  
convenience over the homeowners’ reasonable requests for advanced notice as  
required by Builder Bulletin 20 and by incorporation, her own Vendor Agreement  
with Tarion.  
[165] In addition, I find that F.P.’s repeated demands to attend at the property near the  
end of builder repair periods or even their deadlines stemmed from a lack of  
comprehension with respect to how those periods are calculated. For instance, on  
June 17, 2019, she sent an email to A.T. stating the following incoherent  
interpretation of Tarion’s policies regarding repair periods:  
From speaking with Tarion, they will be unable to warrant your claims  
for a number of reasons tho [sic] primarily, not being permitted access.  
In the unlikely event that your claim is warranted, the builder is still  
given 30+14 Christmas days+120+30+30+30+30days to resolve the  
warranty claim.  
38  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[166] When asked if she still believed if the above erroneous formula accurately  
reflected the builder repair periods, she twice evaded the question, then claimed  
that someone else had directed her to insert this calculation in the email, blamed  
her training with Tarion and ultimately changed the subject to irrelevant matters.  
When asked to apply her understanding of the repair periods to specific items in  
the homeowners’ claims, she consistently offered evasive responses, veering off  
on tangents to unrelated topics. While she interpreted the above formula to  
provide her with 240 days to repair warranted items, Builder Bulletin 42 clearly  
states that the initial builder repair period is 120 days, starting 31 days after the  
homeowner takes possession, excluding the December 24th to January 1st  
Holiday Period. Subsequent builder repair periods are predicated on specific  
events rather than part of a generic 240 day allowance as F.P. asserted.  
[167] F.P. took the position that Tarion did not support her or provide her with sufficient  
notice that her licence could be in jeopardy over a single house construction.  
Although she acknowledged awareness of the information contained in the Builder  
Bulletins, she suggested that Tarion had been colluding with the homeowners as a  
scheme to replenish the Guarantee Fund through inflated penalties and claims or  
simply intended to drive small builders from the industry as part of an agenda to  
favour their larger competitors. Unsurprisingly, she was unable to offer evidence to  
support these conspiracy theories. This position also conflicts with her frequent  
claims throughout the hearing that M.M., O.F. and her stakeholder relations  
contact, B.T., frequently expressed support and commiseration for her difficulties  
dealing with these difficult homeowners.  
[168] Emails between F.P. and M.P. on April 18, 2019 relating to the delivery of kitchen  
doors showed F.P. pressuring the homeowners to accept the delivery on the  
weekend and on a date that she believed to be a statutory holiday. At the time,  
she had returned to her day job with the Niagara Catholic School Board and  
agreed that her own schedule may have slightly limited the options she offered to  
the homeowners for attendances at their house. She explained that she was able  
to take an occasional day off to attend to her construction business and was not  
conducting the actual work at the house, but simply supervising contractors. She  
explained that it was her understanding from Tarion that for outdoor items, she or  
her contractors could simply attend and conduct the work provided that they make  
some effort to work with the homeowners.  
[169] When incorrect window screens were delivered in April 2019, roughly one month  
passed before this issue was resolved. F.P. testified that part of the problem was  
the homeowners’ insistence on being home for the delivery. An email exchange  
between F.P. and A.T. dated April 18, 2019 confirmed that the homeowners had  
offered several dates to May 17, 2019 to which F.P. had replied “got it,” indicating  
agreement. She testified that she had attempted to deliver the screens as early as  
March 2019, a statement seemingly at odds with the established timeline to  
replace the incorrect items delivered in April 2019.  
39  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[170] Pursuant to a letter sent by Tarion to both parties on January 9, 2019, the builder  
repair period for the 30 Day Form ended on May 15, 2019 for non-seasonal items.  
However, email correspondence between F.P. and the homeowners confirmed  
that she was still attempting to schedule work at the property during the days  
following that deadline.  
[171] When the homeowners advised F.P. in late May or early June 2019 that the  
builder repair period had ended and that she was no longer permitted to attend at  
the property to conduct repairs, she insisted upon her erroneous calculation that  
permitted at least 240 days starting from an indeterminate date. While she testified  
that someone at Tarion, possibly B.T., had told her that she could still attend at the  
property to conduct repairs, this alleged statement was hearsay as B.T. did not  
testify at the hearing and his precise statements, including their context, were not  
submitted as evidence. Essentially, she interpreted the end of the builder repair  
period as a meaningless end point since she believed that nothing prevented her  
from conducting repairs on the property after this date. She dismissed the formula  
on the Builder Bulletin as unreliable as these documents are subject to updates.  
[172] When asked if she agreed with M.P.’s evidence that no one attended on May 16,  
2019 to deliver the screens, she was evasive and stated that G.M. attended and  
was asked to leave, possibly on a later date one week later. She denied cancelling  
delivery of the screens, stating that she became confused over her rights to  
access the property and insisted on delivering the items at a time more convenient  
to herself and the supplier. An email exchange between F.P. and her contact at  
JELD-WEN on June 18, 2019 confirmed however that F.P. cancelled the  
appointment the following day to deliver the window parts as she preferred to  
postpone this delivery and combine it with other work on a single collective visit in  
the interests of “efficiency.There was no indication that the homeowners had  
objected to the JELD-WEN delivery on June 19, 2019. Also on June 18, 2019,  
M.P. emailed F.P. to question why she was adamant about gaining access to the  
house with respect to these comparative minor issues when the more serious  
issues such as the rear deck, the walk out and the stairs remained in violation of  
the Code. He stated in the emails that he and A.T. were “unsure of [her] agenda.”  
[173] While she reluctantly agreed under cross examination that homeowners were  
entitled to refuse access after the end of the builder repair period, she took the  
position that they were nonetheless wrong to do so as insisting upon their rights  
interfered with her due diligence in resolving the outstanding issues. Eventually,  
the homeowners took delivery of the hardware from F.P. when she brought them  
to the conciliation inspection on July 30, 2019 and installed these items  
themselves.  
[174] Although F.P. characterized her persistent attempts to access the property as  
evidence of a stalwart dedication to resolving the issues at the property, she  
offered no persuasive rationale for failing to conduct the work within the prescribed  
periods or to work within the reasonable parameters requested by the  
homeowners.  
40  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
Eavestroughs and Roofing Issues  
[175] B.H. operates Hindrea Roofing and Siding and had worked in the roofing industry  
for forty-seven years as of the date of the hearing. He testified that in August 2018,  
F.P. asked him for an estimate to install the metal roof at the property. He had no  
prior relationship with the Appellant. He explained that there is a fifty year warranty  
on the roof, with twenty years for the coating; after twenty years, the manufacturer  
would supply material, but the homeowners would be responsible for the labour  
costs to replace the roof. He did not communicate with the homeowners during the  
installation and was unaware of any problems with the roof for almost two years  
until he was contacted by the homeowners. He also denied receiving any  
communications from the Appellant with respect to problems with the roof after  
installation. He also did not observe any water tests conducted on the roof or  
return to the property until November 2020.  
[176] M.P. recalled that during the period between September 1, 2019 and November  
14, 2019, the Appellant sent a worker to the property to attempt to fix the  
eavestroughs. As F.P. had provided two business days notice, the homeowners  
permitted this attendance. M.P. explained that the gutters had not been installed  
properly and that the drip edge is intended to lead inside the gutter. Instead, the  
gutter had been installed on the face of the drip edge, causing the water to run  
between the gutter and the edge of the roof. M.P. testified that the homeowners  
and the Appellant agreed that the worker would remove and reinstall the gutter  
under the drip edge. While M.P. testified that this agreement was made by email,  
that communication was not submitted as evidence at the hearing.  
[177] However, this was not the solution adopted by JJM Aluminum Siding and Windows  
Inc. (‘JJM’), the company the Appellant sent to repair the eavestroughs. Instead,  
J.M. attended and installed a flashing over the top of the drip edge, applied  
caulking and screwed flashing to the drip edge around the entire perimeter of the  
house. This was visible from the ground in some areas and not only failed to  
resolve the leak, but worsened the problem in some areas. Photographs taken by  
M.P. show large applications of caulking material applied by JJM between the drip  
edge and the gutter, open screw holes as well as a dent in the gutter caused  
during this work and crudely folded aluminum at the corner of the eavestrough,  
leaving an opening at the bottom of the eaves.  
[178] On November 13, 2019, M.P. sent an email to M.M. with respect to his  
dissatisfaction with J.M.’s repairs. The attached photographs showed caulking  
added to the two rows of interlocking steel layers closest to the edge of the roof,  
immediately before the eavestroughs. M.P. noted in his email that the large  
amount of caulking used may indicate a more serious issue while simultaneously  
having no effect on the drainage problem. He stated that both the installation of  
the gutter and the misuse of the caulking represented poor workmanship.  
[179] M.P. testified that the seams on the roof also opened when the Appellant’s worker  
walked on its surface. At the hearing, he indicated an area further up the roof  
41  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
where the worker’s actions had caused one of the shingle-like layers to detach,  
resulting in a raised edge.  
[180] B.H. agreed that the eavestroughs had been improperly installed over the drip  
edge with the hangers fastened over the drip edge. He recalled observing that  
someone had caulked the seams along the bottom edge of the roof. He and his  
son added a sealer over this material that would expand and contract with  
changing temperatures and matched the roof surface.  
[181] M.P. recalled that on or about November 30, 2019, J.M. attended on the last day  
of the builder repair period. The homeowners were confused with respect to his  
presence as the Appellant had stated that she planned to put together a proposal  
with B.H. for a different solution to the issues with the roof that did not involve  
J.M.’s company. B.H. advised A.T. that F.P. had sent him to the house as it was  
raining and he asked to inspect the leaks. A.T. showed him an area at the rear of  
the house and he stated that there was likely an issue with roof and promptly left.  
M.P. clarified that neither he nor A.T. asked J.M. to leave.  
The September 2020 Conciliation  
[182] On September 17, 2020, Tarion conducted a water test to determine if the  
Appellant’s repairs to the eavestroughs had fixed the problem. T.S. recalled that  
the restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic likely delayed this test to  
September 2020 as all of Tarion’s inspections had been rescheduled to after  
August 2020. Conversely, he noted that pandemic restrictions would not have  
necessarily delayed the Appellant’s ability to conduct repairs since construction  
was deemed an essential service. He was not aware of how many inspections  
may have been conducted in the area where the property is located, but was  
aware of some virtual inspections that proceeded in the Windsor area.  
[183] The homeowners requested that F.P. not attend at the property but did agree to  
allow a qualified tradesperson to represent the Appellant at the conciliation and  
observe the water test. At the request of Tarion, the Appellant provided the names  
of three companies with the necessary insurance coverage and the homeowners  
selected Gutterserve from this list.  
[184] Tarion investigated the eavestrough by hiring contractors to inspect and water test  
the troughs to verify the operation of the troughs. T.S., the homeowners and J.K.  
and K.A. for UBS attended to conduct the water test.  
[185] M.P. and T.S. testified that M.D., the representative from Gutterserve, was late to  
the water test and arrived while UBS was examining the eavestroughs; he left the  
property without explanation after approximately ten minutes. Shortly thereafter,  
someone else arrived in a black Jeep and watched the water test for some time  
before exiting his vehicle. After some evasion with respect to his identity, he  
introduced himself as a representative for Gutterserve, attending on the  
Appellant’s behalf. T.S. asked for some identification and that he introduced  
42  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
himself as J.V. to A.T. A.T. contacted Gutterserve to verify his employment;  
Gutterserve advised that no one by that name worked for the company; J.V.  
promptly departed. At the hearing, F.P. explained that J.V. is in fact a real estate  
agent.  
[186] J.K. and K.A. examined the eavestrough installation on September 17, 2020 and  
ran water on the roof with a garden hose to test the operation. The resulting WAR,  
dated October 21, 2020, was distributed to the homeowner and the Appellant. F.P.  
refused to state whether the eavestrough continued to leak by the date of T.S.’s  
inspection, preferring to complain that because her agent J.V. was made to feel  
very unwelcome,he left the property.  
[187] T.S. testified that he personally inspected the eavestroughs and observed water  
leaking from the corner joints of the eavestrough and down the back of the  
eavestrough between the eavestrough and the fascia. UBS took photographs and  
provided these images to Tarion with their findings in a report dated October 21,  
2020. T.S. relied on these photographs when he drafted his assessment.  
[188] He confirmed that because the Appellant had installed the eavestroughs on top of  
the leading edge of the roofing material rather than behind it, water collected from  
the roof surface was channeled behind the eavestroughs rather than into them. In  
addition, parts of the roofing material particularly at the mitre corners of the roof  
were not properly interlocked, but crudely folded, resulting in gaps. As well, the  
eavestrough itself is buckled and distorted in areas, resulting in wider gaps  
between the edge of the roof and the eaves, allowing water running off the roof to  
run down the wall behind eavestrough, missing it altogether. Photographs  
provided by UBS confirmed that the eavestrough was improperly installed over the  
roof edge around the entire house. At the hearing, F.P. expressed confusion at  
this evidence as she could not discern any issues with the eavestrough assembly,  
later admitting under cross-examination that she was aware of at least one leak  
from information provided by J.M.  
[189] JJM had smeared copious amounts of caulking along the roofline in an attempt to  
seal the gap between the drip edge and the eavestrough and along the open  
seams on the roof surface. Both the original assembly and the inept repairs  
represent poor workmanship. T.S. noted that the use of caulking in this instance  
cannot be relied upon as a long term solution as it is intended as a maintenance  
material and did not alleviate the leaks. Tarion later received information from the  
manufacturer that caulking is not intended as a means of sealing joints on this  
style of roof. F.P. defended this repair on the basis that because T.S. had declined  
her request for an extension, this was the best that could be done.  
[190] Photographs provided by UBS show areas of damage to the surface of the steel  
roof where the granular coating has been scuffed away by foot traffic. T.S. noted  
that M.P.’s own photographic evidence of the damage to the roof concurred with  
his own assessment of the issue.  
43  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[191] Lastly, a diagram in the UBS report shows that the water test revealed numerous  
sites of leaking all around the perimeter of the roof. T.S. observed the UBS  
workers highlighting the areas of leakage on a rough draft of this diagram as they  
encountered leaks during the test. He confirmed that the diagram was an accurate  
representation of the locations and prevalence of the leaks revealed by the water  
test.  
The 2020 Builder Repair Period  
[192] On October 8, 2020, T.S. emailed F.P. and the homeowners, advising that  
because he had not yet received the report from UBS to assess the eavestrough  
leaks, there was “currently no builder repair period in place for the repairs” and  
that it was “probably to everyone’s benefit to wait for the report before determining  
the type and extent of repairs required.” He then asked F.P. to advise who she  
preferred to conduct repairs to the eavestroughs, noting that the homeowners  
would likely require more details regarding her proposed alternative contractor  
before they offered a response. In the same email, he reminded F.P. that Tarion  
was still waiting on the contact information for “the gentleman that attended this  
home on your behalf after Michael Dawson left the site.” F.P. understood this  
email to mean that she should wait until Tarion contacted her to resume repairs to  
the eavestroughs. As a result, I find that in this case, F.P. may have been  
reasonably confused with respect to the timing of the builder repair period  
following the September 17, 2020 inspection, at least until T.S. issued his report  
three weeks later.  
[193] Tarion’s WAR, dated October 29, 2020, reported the results of the water test as  
follows:  
Tarion investigated the eaves trough by hiring a contractor to inspect  
and water test the troughs to verify the operation of the troughs.  
Unlimited Building Solutions examined the eave trough installation on  
September 17, 2020 and ran water on the roof with a garden hose to  
test the operation. Their report dated October 21, 2020 was distributed  
to the homeowner and builder.  
Leaks through the eaves trough joints and water bypassing the  
troughs were identified in numerous locations. Water was observed to  
bypass the roofing system and leaked out under the roofing in some  
isolated locations. Damage to the roofing was observed including scuff  
marks on the granular surfacing and caulking applied to the surface of  
the roofing. Liberal amounts of caulking along the top of the back edge  
of the trough in isolated locations was observed. The inspection also  
revealed areas of the roofing where the roof sheathing materials  
remain exposed at the bottom of hips.  
[194] The WAR provided a deadline of November 30, 2020 to resolve the issues with  
the eavestroughs or “by the date that may be indicated in the report for a particular  
44  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
item.T.S. testified that another thirty day builder repair period followed the  
issuance of the WAR to allow the Appellant to resolve the warranted items.  
[195] M.P. confirmed he was aware of this repair period but did not recall any significant  
scheduling or access issues with respect to the completion of repairs to this area  
after September 17, 2020, other than several inquires from the Appellant’s  
contractor with respect to timeframes and the homeowners’ requirement of two  
business days’ notice. While F.P. may have been confused by T.S.’s comments on  
October 8, 2020, upon receipt of the WAR, she should have reasonably  
understood that the applicable builder repair period terminated on November 30,  
2020.  
[196] T.S. did not recall any appeal by the Appellant to the BAF in response to the WAR.  
However, F.P. explained that the Notice of Proposal had suspended her licence  
and in turn her eligibility to engage the BAF appeal process. The Appellant’s  
ineligibility to commence an arbitration through the BAF was confirmed in a late  
submitted letter dated May 6, 2021 from Tarion that referenced BAF Procedural  
Rule 3 that bars builders whose licence is subject to a Notice of Proposal from  
commencing such an appeal.  
[197] Although the homeowners had not listed the damage to the roof in the 30 Day  
Form, this damage was caused by subsequent foot traffic on its surface when the  
Appellant’s workers attempted to repair the problems with the eavestroughs, an  
issue that was listed on the 30 Day Form. Tarion found that the eavestroughs were  
covered by the warranties and that the Appellant must resolve them. This warranty  
did not cover the dent in the eavestrough described by M.P. in his testimony and  
photographic evidence as Tarion had no means of confirming his theory that this  
damage was caused by workers attempting to repair the roof. Although warranted,  
the eavestroughs were not chargeable as the original conciliation had been  
chargeable and Tarion only charges one conciliation to a Form. In other words,  
although the Appellant was required to repair this item because it had been found  
warranted, it would not be charged the set $1,000.00 fee for a chargeable item as  
this had already been imposed.  
[198] T.S. recalled that the Appellant gained access to the property and conducted  
some repairs, specifically screwing sheet metal to the fascia board above the  
eavestroughs. M.P. also testified that Gutterserve installed flashing at some point  
after the issuance of the WAR. He stated that this repair was subsequent to JJM’s  
earlier work which involved further application of caulking. He photographed the  
piece of bent and wavy flashing loosely screwed to the edge of the roof above the  
gutter during the latter repairs. He testified that UBS returned to confirm that the  
repairs involving the flashing had resolved the issue.  
[199] The homeowners notified T.S. with respect to the crudely installed flashing and  
T.S. discussed this with F.P., expressing concerns that a sharp edge to the  
flashing that projected away from the surface perpendicular to the drip edge could  
injure anyone attempting to maintain the eavestroughs. He believed that it was  
45  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
subsequently changed to a hemmed edge since he did not observe any horizontal  
flashing at the subsequent claim inspection. A number of other images taken by  
the homeowners likely depicted earlier attempts to correct the leaking issue before  
April 2021.  
[200] The Appellant emailed T.S. to request a change to the method of repair on or  
about the twenty-fifth day of the period and asked for an extension to  
accommodate the alternative repair strategy. T.S. encountered some difficulties in  
getting a clear description of the planned repairs and requested details of this  
planned work in writing. While he never received this written description, he  
learned that after the repair period had ended, the Appellant had proposed to  
remove and reinstall all of the eavestrough and portions of the roof.  
[201] T.S. forwarded the extension request to other staff at Tarion for consideration and  
noted that the other department ultimately denied the extension request. He  
explained that Tarion usually extends a repair period in instances where a  
particular material is not available or it may take more than thirty days to order it,  
such as custom-made kitchen cupboards or windows which often take some time  
to order. In this case, the reason for the request related to a course change in the  
middle of the repair period, which Tarion believed would unfairly prejudice the  
homeowners by serving to drag out the process. He conveyed Tarion’s decision to  
F.P., who responded by repeating the same argument for extension.  
[202] B.H. testified that on Friday, November 13, 2020, he spoke with A.T., who  
informed him that there was a problem with the eavestroughs. He advised her that  
since there was a 90% chance of rain on November 15, 2020, she should check  
for leaks and call him the following Monday, November 16, 2020 to attend and  
inspect the roof. When he attended at the property on November 16, 2020, he  
discovered evidence that someone had walked on the roof and that the panels had  
separated as a result of this contact. He explained that there is a specific way to  
walk on such a roof without causing damage, but had no idea who had caused this  
damage.  
[203] He stated that his son sealed the panels and touched up these areas to match the  
original colour. At the front entrance at the left side where the valley meets the  
trough and the fascia, his son found an opening not sealed by the trough installer,  
which he sealed. When they came down from the roof, A.T. directed his son to the  
mitre at the corner of the roof. While B.H. was not aware of the precise nature of  
the latter problem, he testified that his son repaired this issue and they departed  
the property.  
[204] When the builder repair period ended on November 30, 2020, the eavestroughs  
had not been repaired and the homeowners were dissatisfied with the work to that  
point. As a result, Tarion scheduled a claim inspection for this item.  
[205] On December 1, 2020, B.H. contacted F.P. to detail the scope of the work required  
to resolve the remaining issues with the roof and eavestroughs, specifically  
46  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
replacing the first layer of the shingles the eavestroughs and the drip edge. He  
advised F.P. of the estimated cost to complete these repairs and speculated at the  
hearing that it would have cost approximately $5,000.00. He ordered the new drip  
edge from Boral Roofing (‘Boral’), the manufacturer and was ready to commence  
the work. Boral had taken over from the predecessor company and changed all of  
the available colours; however, he advised F.P. that at the time that the project  
was contemplated, the colour for the roof was still available. It has since ceased to  
be available and he would be unable to match the colour of the existing panels  
with the replacement materials now available, resulting in higher costs.  
[206] However, he did not carry out the repairs as A.T. never called him back to confirm  
the project. It was his understanding based upon something that he read that A.T.  
had refused to have this work done. He noted that the manufacturer’s warranty  
would not have covered modifications or work conducted on the roof by someone  
other than a contractor certified by the manufacturer. The warranty similarly would  
not have covered the eavestroughs or damage caused by someone walking on the  
roof.  
The April 14, 2021 Claim Inspection  
[207] On April 14, 2021, T.S. attended at the property and conducted a claim inspection.  
The homeowners and L.S. from UBS attended the inspection. The Appellant was  
neither present nor represented at this test. UBS conducted another water test on  
the gutters and disassembled part of the flashing to assess its functionality with  
respect to the earlier repairs by JJM. The water test confirmed that the  
eavestroughs continued to leak down the wall and at the mitre joints.  
[208] Both T.S. and L.S. took several photographs during the inspection, all of which  
were considered in the resulting assessment. Tarion hired UBS to ascend the roof  
as Tarion staff do not climb ladders or work at heights. Photographs taken by L.S.  
and presented at the hearing showed the brown flashing added by JJM over the  
eavestroughs and the earlier caulking smeared into the roof seams. Images of the  
water test show water applied to the roof surface by L.S. bypassing the  
eavestrough and running down the face of the wall. UBS detached the brown  
flashing in one area to reveal caulking underneath smeared along the  
eavestroughs. The water test demonstrated that neither the caulking nor the  
flashing prevented the leaks. As a result, the added flashing provided no  
significant improvement.  
[209] Also evident in the inspection were several scuff marks on the surface of the roof.  
UBS echoed the comments made by T.S. in its report to Tarion that the caulking  
represented an ineffective method of local repair when the roof manufacturer  
recommended complete replacement. While the claim that prompted this  
inspection related to the leaking eavestroughs, T.S. agreed with the homeowners’  
theory that workers sent by the Appellant had caused this damage by walking on  
the roof without proper precautions against scuffing its granular surface. Under  
cross-examination, he testified that the homeowners had shown him photographs  
47  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
of contractors walking on the roof but conceded that these images were not  
submitted as evidence. However, he emphasized that if trades are responsible for  
causing damage in the course of conducting repairs, they are also responsible for  
those damages.  
[210] T.S. testified that the repairs carried out by the Appellant did not meet warranty  
standards and exhibited poor workmanship. Tarion issued its report on July 12,  
2021 and found the item warranted as the eaves trough still leak despite the  
recent repairs.” The report confirmed that the roofing “was not installed properly  
and will need to be removed to install the eaves troughs.”  
[211] It is worth noting that this WAR was issued only ten days before the second day of  
testimony when this evidence was presented. As a result, T.S. stated that Tarion’s  
next step would be to resolve the claim with the homeowners. As of the date of the  
hearing, Tarion was in the process of obtaining estimates for the costs of the  
repairs. Multiple quotes are required as it would appear that the roof must be  
removed and replaced.  
[212] T.S. could not comment on F.P.’s conduct as he had never met her due to the  
homeowners’ preference that she not attend inspections after he became involved  
in the file. He corresponded with her primarily by email. He testified that to his  
knowledge, this home was the only property constructed by the Appellant and  
enrolled in the Tarion program. He did not know how long the Appellant had been  
licenced, but in his experience, the two chargeable conciliations for a first and only  
build was unusual and “not a good record.”  
Analysis  
[213] Like the ONHWPA before it, the present Act represents consumer protection  
legislation intended to protect purchasers of new homes in Ontario.5 That the  
Appellant may be comparatively new to the regulatory scheme does not offer it a  
defence against its obligations under the Act or the Regulations. As the Tribunal  
held in Ashlar Construction Ltd. v. Registrar, Ontario New Home Warranties Plan  
Act:  
The Act is consumer protection legislation, and the stakes are high for  
homebuyers. They expect that Tarion has satisfied itself when  
registering a builder that the builder will be able to build well-  
constructed homes, on time, and in accordance with regulatory  
requirements, including meeting its warranty obligations, both  
financially and from an after sales service perspective. Whether it is a  
relatively new builder, such as Ashlar, or a large, established builder,  
the expectations are the same. In other words, there is no  
“probationary period” where the builder learns the ins and outs of the  
various Builder Bulletins and regulations. The homeowners at 1605  
5 Tarion Warranty Corporation v. Kozy (2011), 109 O.R. (3d) 180 at para. 2 (Ont. C.A.).  
48  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
may have been challenging clients, but it was not for Mr. Hamed to  
conclude that they had forfeited their right to warranty coverage by  
virtue of their behaviour.6  
[214] As the findings of the first two warranty assessment reports were never challenged  
through an arbitration at the BAF, it is not open to the Tribunal to question the  
determinations made within these documents with respect to poor workmanship.  
[215] Builder Bulletin 42 sets out the process to appeal findings in WARs as follows:  
BUILDER ARBITRATION FORUM  
A builder who disagrees with Tarion’s determination of warrantability  
or chargeability in a Warranty Assessment Report may be eligible to  
request an arbitration under the Builder Arbitration Forum. An  
arbitration request may only be made by registered builders who  
attend the conciliation inspections and must be made within 28 days of  
receipt of the Warranty Assessment Report. For full eligibility  
requirements and other information, please refer to Builder Bulletin 41:  
Builder Arbitration Forum. [Emphasis in original]  
[216] In the present case, the Appellant did not follow this process following issuance of  
E.C.’s or M.M.’s WARs.  
[217] In Ashlar, the Tribunal considered the role of BAF as the appropriate form for a  
builder to dispute settlement amounts paid by Tarion to the homeowners:  
Mr. Hamed expressed frustration and did not agree with the settlement  
amounts paid to the homeowners. He believed that the homeowners  
were, to some extent, at fault due to their lack of communication with  
him and their manipulation of the Tarion system. Upon receiving  
Tarion’s invoice, he wrote a letter, citing several points of  
disagreement. He stated that he had “continuously inquired when  
speaking with [the homeowners] if everything we were doing was to  
their liking. They confirmed it was with the only exception being the  
stucco columns not having a top-coat as they wanted.” He further  
stated that the homeowners’ “lack of communication, deliberate  
misleading and lying” led to the builder repair periods having been  
exhausted. In the same letter, he asked to appeal the decision to hold  
Ashlar in breach of warranty. However, as noted above, he did not file  
an appeal with the BAF, as was his right.  
The Tribunal was clear, at the outset of the hearing, that this was not  
the forum to hear or determine questions regarding the warrantability  
of claims or the chargeability of inspections. The BAF would have  
been the appropriate venue for Mr. Ashlar to voice his concerns  
6 2017 35337 at 13 (ON LAT) (‘Ashlar’)  
49  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
regarding the homeowners’ alleged actions - upon which he claims to  
have relied - to his detriment, in this case.  
Mr. Hamed did not attend the January 26th conciliation inspection. By  
that time, the relationship between the 1605 homeowners and Ashlar  
had deteriorated. In particular, Mr. Hamed and M.P., an employee who  
performed some customer service and administrative work for Ashlar,  
testified that the male homeowner demonstrated intimidating and  
volatile behaviour. Mr. Hamed described the homeowner as an “edge  
case” and Ms. P. indicated in her testimony that Ashlar had  
“constantly” been denied access to the home, despite its attempts to  
resolve the warranted items.  
Yet, once again, Ashlar did not appeal Tarion’s findings of  
chargeability to the BAF. While the Tribunal is prepared to accept  
Ashlar’s evidence regarding the difficulties it faced when dealing with  
the 1605 homeowners, we reiterate that this is not the forum in which  
a builder may dispute Tarion’s findings of warrantability or  
chargeability.7  
[218] In the present case, the Registrar issued the Notice of Proposal before T.S. issued  
his WAR on November 26, 2019. The evidence indicated that the Appellant did  
attempt to commence an appeal with BAF with this WAR but was ineligible to  
proceed as her licence was then under notice of proposal. As a result, the findings  
in that WAR may be open to some examination. However, since that WAR  
contained no chargeable items, it did not adversely contribute to the Appellant’s  
record with respect to the ratio of chargeable items to possessions. There was  
also no substantive dispute that the eavestroughs continued to leak when T.S.  
found them to be warranted as of the date of inspection on September 17, 2020,  
particularly as F.P. was in contact with B.H. as late as December 1, 2020 with a  
plan to fix the issues with the roof.  
[219] The Appellant failed to indemnify the Guarantee Fund for damages arising from  
multiple breaches of warranty. According to Tarion’s evidence, $69,500.44  
remained outstanding, not including any anticipated amount related to the  
eavestroughs repair. While B.H. estimated that this work would cost $5,000.00 in  
2020, he noted at the hearing that it would now cost more as the manufacturer no  
longer produces roofing materials in this colour. As of the date of the hearing, T.S.  
was still in the process of gathering quotes.  
[220] This balance is consistent with F.P.’s own evidence that her $20,000.00 deposit  
had been applied to invoices and that she may have made an additional payment  
to O.F. However, she did not dispute E.C.’s evidence of the balance outstanding,  
7 Ibid. at 8-9.  
50  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
instead offering an alternative accounting based upon her own assessments of the  
cost of materials and labour to resolve the outstanding defects with the property.  
Significantly, T.S. was never challenged under cross-examination with respect to  
the accuracy of the charged amounts and the Appellant called no witnesses to  
corroborate the reasonableness of her own calculations with respect to her  
preferred total of $25,000.00, despite the opportunities for both. T.S. explained  
that the claim was the product of multiple estimates, two provided by arm’s length  
contractors, while F.P. offered a vague summary of unspecified conversations with  
anonymous sources and undisclosed research to arrive at a significantly lower  
figure, largely informed by her own subjective dismissal of the homeowners’  
complaints for many of the defects. On the balance of probabilities, I prefer the  
charged amounts and total submitted by Tarion in the claims assessment as the  
more reliable evidence.  
[221] Pursuant to section 2.1 of the Vendor Agreement, the warranty is that of the  
builder and it bears the responsibility to indemnify the Guarantee Fund, not Tarion.  
In Re Charmchi, the Tribunal noted that pursuant to then section 8(2) of the  
ONHWPA, “the Registrar may refuse registration where the registrant has a record  
of breaches of warranties or of failure or unwillingness to complete performance of  
contracts or is in breach of a term or condition of the registration.8 In that case,  
the applicant builder had a one possession, but three chargeable conciliations to  
one possession, two arising from the same incident. As the adjudicator noted, “It is  
not a long record; it is not a good record.9 The Tribunal further noted that the  
breach of the condition to indemnify is a serious breach and should have a  
consequence. It also provided further and legitimate concern as to the builder’s  
willingness and ability to be regulated.10 The Tribunal took the position that the  
consumer protection purpose of the legislation required that the consequences  
must relate to the issue of registration:  
The Act is to protect consumers both before and after they take  
possession of their new home. How the Applicant deals with the  
problems and concerns, which arise after possession is, among other  
things, critical to determining whether he should be in the industry.11  
[222] Similarly, in B & C Contracting (Kenora) Inc. (Re), the Tribunal directly considered  
the issue of unpaid invoices related to unresolved construction defects:  
There is no dispute that the Applicant has made no effort to indemnify  
TWC for any of the settlement funds advanced to homeowners as a  
result of the Applicant failing to remedy deficiencies found warranted  
in the construction of its homes. It is also clear this obligation is  
derived from contractual agreements signed at the time of registration,  
8 [2008] O.L.A.T.D. No. 270 (‘Charmchi’).  
9 Ibid. at para. 116.  
10 Ibid. at para. 128.  
11 Ibid. at para. 141.  
51  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
no less than from the terms and conditions of registration under  
section 1.3 and 1.4 of Regulation 894.12  
[223] As the Appellant remains in breach of the Vendor Agreement, I find that it is not  
entitled to renewal of its licence pursuant to paragraphs (d) and (e) of subsection  
38(1) of the Act. As explained below, I am not satisfied that renewal of the  
Appellant’s licence with conditions would be appropriate in this case.  
[224] F.P.’s lack of understanding of the builder repair periods also represented  
insufficient technical competence. The 30 Day Form included a mix of ordinary  
and seasonal claims, leading to two different timelines for repairs. For one of the  
seasonal items, when it came time for assessment, it was too cold to conduct a  
water test, resulting in assessment at a later date and in turn another timeline.  
Further complicating the latter issue, some of the claims fell over the holiday  
season and Tarion does not include the period from December 24 to January 1 as  
part of the builder repair periods.  
[225] The homeowners’ 30 Day Form included a number of ordinary non-seasonal  
claims. Based upon the information outlined in Builder Bulletin 42, the following  
timeline applied:  
a. The homeowners had thirty days from the December 6, 2018 date of  
possession to file a claim, excluding December 24, 2018, to January 1,  
2019, resulting in a deadline of January 14, 2019.  
b. The initial builder repair period was 120 days from the end of the  
homeowner claim period, ending on May 15, 2019.  
c. Tarion notified the Appellant that the homeowners had requested a  
conciliation on June 19, 2019, which triggered the 30 Day builder pre-  
conciliation period, ending on July 18, 2019.  
d. The conciliation inspection took place June 30, 2019. All the items were to  
be resolved at or before that time.  
[226] The homeowners’ 30 Day claim form contained a number of seasonal claims. The  
following timeline applied to all of these items, except the eavestroughs:  
a. As with the ordinary items, the homeowners were required to file their  
claim by January 14, 2019.  
b. The initial builder repair period for the seasonal items ended September  
1, 2019.  
c. The Appellant was notified that the homeowners had requested a  
conciliation on June 19, 2019, which triggered the 30-day builder pre-  
12 [2007] O.L.A.T.D. No. 107 at para. 87 (ON LAT).  
52  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
conciliation period, ending on July 18, 2019. However, this was a moot  
point, as the initial builder repair period for seasonal items extended  
beyond that date.  
d. The conciliation inspection of all seasonal items except the eavestroughs  
took place on November 14, 2019. The WAR was issued on November  
19, 2019. The builder post conciliation period was thirty days from the  
warranty assessment report, excluding December 24, 2019, to January 1,  
2020, resulting in a deadline of January 6, 2020.  
[227] The remaining seasonal item from the homeowners’ claim (the eavestroughs)  
could not be assessed at the same time as the others because it was too cold to  
conduct a water test. The following timeline applied to the eavestroughs:  
a. The conciliation inspection of the eavestroughs took place on September  
17, 2020. Tarion issued the WAR on October 29, 2020. The builder post  
conciliation period was thirty days from the warranty assessment report,  
terminating on November 30, 2020.  
[228] The timeline for a delayed closing claim is even more straightforward. A  
homeowner has one year to submit a claim. A builder has thirty days from the date  
of the claim to resolve it, failing which Tarion will conduct an assessment and  
issue a WAR. In this case, the homeowners filed their claim on November 4, 2019.  
The builder failed to resolve the claim and Tarion issued its warranty assessment  
report on February 10, 2020.  
[229] The Appellant’s almost total failure to comply with the builder repair periods  
provides a backdrop for its lack of technical competence. For instance, the  
screens for the windows were not delivered until March 2019, but even these were  
the wrong screens. In April, May and June 2019, the homeowners were still asking  
for the proper screens. In July 2019, the homeowners made arrangements directly  
with the supplier; however, emails from F.P. showed that she was actively  
attempting to block delivery of this item. Other interior items were only resolved  
when F.P. delivered items at the conciliation inspection, leaving the homeowners  
to install these items themselves. This does not demonstrate a good customer  
service record.  
[230] Emails from the homeowners and testimony at the hearing demonstrated that F.P.  
also did not approach her responsibilities as a builder with sufficient seriousness.  
For instance, she failed to act in a respectful, courteous and cooperative manner  
in all aspects of the claims process or to provide resolutions in a timely manner,  
often attempting to resolve issues at the last minute or later.  
[231] She also failed to be fair and reasonable in scheduling repairs and reliable in  
terms of following up on the agreed to dates and times. As noted in Builder Bulletin  
20, most homeowners have to book time off work to accommodate the scheduling  
arrangements. As a result, a minimum period of two business days’ notice should  
53  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
be provided to homeowners when scheduling repairs. In the present case, M.P.  
testified that A.T.’s mother suffered from dementia and the homeowners worked  
full time. A.T.’s mother was confused by the arrival of unannounced trades.  
[232] With respect to exterior items other than the eavestroughs, the Appellant had until  
September 1, 2019 to conduct repairs. However, the items listed on the 30 Day  
Form were not resolved by this date and, other than the seasonable items, were  
found warranted by M.M. They were found to be chargeable items and  
represented serious and expensive defects including Code violations and health  
and safety issues. The Appellant’s efforts to resolve these issues were excessively  
slow and represented at best half measures. For instance, the deck had obvious  
and multiple structural problems. These items cost the Guarantee Fund  
$73,100.00 to resolve.  
[233] Even after this experience, the Appellant still demonstrated a poor grasp of her  
customer service responsibilities, largely reiterating her unreasonable positions  
during the hearing. For instance, when confronted under cross-examination with  
respect to her faulty interpretation of the builder repair periods as set out in her  
email of June 17, 2019, she continued to insist that she had 240 days to repair any  
item, according to her own nonsensical formula and in direct conflict with the  
explanatory materials in the Builder Bulletin.  
[234] Rather than acknowledge her errors, F.P. continued to blame the homeowners  
and attack their character. For instance, the evidence overwhelmingly confirmed  
that the Appellant failed to follow the formal process for extending the closing date.  
However, rather than acknowledge her mistake, she blamed the homeowners for  
requesting modifications to the agreement of purchase and sale.  
[235] F.P.’s allegations that she was denied access to the property also lacked  
substance. The email exchanges relied upon by the Appellant equally convey an  
attempt to cooperate with her to resolve the interior items at least until the builder  
repair period expired. At that point, the emails show their frustration over F.P.’s  
failure to understand her responsibilities or the relevant repair periods and let  
months pass before resolving even simple items such the delivery of window  
screens.  
[236] B.H. was not contacted with respect to a comprehensive solution to the defects  
with the roof until December 1, 2020, one day after the end of the final builder  
repair period and almost two full years after the date of possession. On the  
evidence, there were multiple shoddy attempts to the eavestrough that may have  
caused additional damage to the roof in the process. At this point, the  
homeowners were entitled to deal directly with Tarion to resolve the issue.  
[237] While the present record includes two chargeable conciliations for one possession,  
one less than in Charmchi, this Appellant’s performance high ratio of two  
chargeable conciliations to one possession amply demonstrates a lack of  
competence.  
54  
Decision and Order  
12870/NHCLA  
[238] In Limo Homes (Re)