12/05/2025– Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 90 published on 01/06/2025
Divisional Court upholds decision of License Appeal Tribunal finding existence of major structural defects
Allegra appealed the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) wherein the Tribunal held that major structural defects existed in the design and construction of the condominium’s shared garage. The Tribunal had ordered Tarion to pay $1,736,271.23 to the condominium corporation.
The appellant argued that the Tribunal made errors of mixed law and fact by
- incorrectly finding that major structural defects existed,
- improperly extending the seven-year major structural defect warranty for an indefinite period,
- failing to recognize that the issues raised had already been settled and released (as part of Tarion’s conciliation process), and
- awarding damages that included repair costs for portions of the garage owned by separate entities, specifically YRCC 1307 (Sister Corporation) and a commercial owner.
The Divisional court dismissed the appeal and upheld the LAT’s award. In doing so, the Divisional Court confirmed the following paragraph from the LAT’s decision:
I agree with the Appellant that the Act (the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act) should be broadly and liberally interpreted because it is consumer protection legislation. In my view, since I have determined that there is a MSD, it would create an absurd result if I ordered the respondent to repair the MSD only in the portion of the garage that is owned by the appellant. In effect, this would fail to repair the MSD, because it is an integrated structure, and all the components work together for the stability of the building. In my view, if I ordered the respondent to repair or pay for the cost of repairs to 46% of the building it would endanger the stability of the other half of the structure. I am satisfied that since the garage is a fully integrated structure remedial work is necessary to correct the MSD on the whole structure.