• Homeowners_HERO

    Homeowners

How the Warranty Works: Two-Year Warranty Examples

Example 1: Defects in porch steps

Step 1 – Claim submission & description: The owner files a claim on a Second-Year Form indicating that the step leading to the front porch is not the same width as the porch and that a guard rail is missing. This is an apparently unacceptable condition, so the owner met their onus at this stage.  

Step 2 – Builder repair period: The builder does not do any repairs, taking the position that the step width and lack of guard rail meet the Ontario Building Code (OBC) requirements.

Step 3 – Request for conciliation: The owner requests conciliation.

Step 4 – Claim assessment: Tarion gathers information from the owner and builder and measures the step.  The step is 1,220 mm wide.  Tarion refers to sentence 9.8.2.1(1) of the OBC, which requires that exist stairs shall not be less than 900 mm wide, and concludes that the step exceeds the OBC requirements and is not warranted.  

In terms of the guard rails, Tarion measures the height of the porch, which is 500 mm.  Sentence 9.8.8.1(1) of the OBC says that guard rails are not required if the porch height is less than 600 mm.  Therefore, this item is also assessed as not warranted.

Step 5 – Claim inspection & Step 6 – Compensation from Guarantee Fund: Since the items are not warranted, these steps are not required.  

If the owner wishes to challenge the warranty assessments, they may escalate to a manager, request a mediation or a Decision Letter to appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

Example 2: Water penetration through roof

Step 1 – Claim submission & description: The owner files a claim on a Second-Year Form, reporting that there is water staining on the drywall inside the home near the roof line.  This is an apparently unacceptable condition, so the owner has met their onus at this stage.

Step 2 – Builder repair period: The builder investigates but does not do repairs, taking the position that the water infiltration results from normally-occurring ice damming and there is no warranted defect.

Step 3 – Request for conciliation: The owner requests conciliation.

Step 4 – Claim assessment: Tarion gathers information from the owner and builder and refers to Article 5.4 of the Construction Performance Guidelines.  Since the builder is claiming the condition is not defective, the onus is on the builder to establish there is no warranted defect underlying the leaking.

Step 5 – Claim inspection: The builder has not resolved the issue and has not provided evidence to substantiate that there is no defect.  Tarion retains a consultant to assist in establishing the cause and a scope of work for repairs. The cause is determined to be lack of flashing.

Step 6 – Compensation from Guarantee Fund: Damages are evident in this case.  Tarion considers all of the other issues and concludes that the owner is entitled to compensation for the cost to install the missing flashing, as well as to repair the interior damage directly caused by the leak.   
 

    

share