Decision and Order
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.