Tarion to prohibit shady practice

Once every six blue moons, Tarion proposes a change to the Ontario New Home Warranty Plan that actually benefits purchasers of new homes without giving any kind of benefit to homebuilders or developers. This is one of those momentous, rare occasions.

In mid-October 2010, Tarion gave notice of its proposal to amend its regulations to combat the rather disreputable practice of a small number of condo developers that charge purchasers the [over]estimated municipal taxes or development charges for new units without refunding the difference if a lesser amount was actually paid to the municipality. This practice of developers pocketing the difference was described months ago in the regular newspaper column of Toronto real estate lawyer Bob Aaron. See his articles here and here. He called for some change to be made.

Luckily, Mr. Aaron is a member of the board of the Tarion Warranty Corporation and it seems that he has successfully persuaded Tarion to do something about this!

In the notice of the proposed amendment to its regulation, Tarion summarized the measure as follows:

Tarion would like to ensure that builders are not including charges as adjustments to the purchase price of a new home that have not actually been incurred by the builder. This amendment to the regulation will make the restriction of these charges a new term and condition of builder registration.

The actual proposed wording of the prohibition to be added to Tarion’s regulation is as follows:

The registrant shall not charge as an adjustment or readjustment to the purchase price of a home, any amount as reimbursement for a sum payable to a third party unless and to the extent such sum is ultimately paid to such third party.

This change, if passed, should persuade those few bad apple developers to stop the unfair practice of pocketing the difference between what they collect from purchasers and what they remit to municipalities or others. Indeed, a developer found in breach of this provision stands to lose their Tarion registration. While the proposed change does not provide a direct way for consumers to recover the difference, it should allow purchasers a certain amount of clout when negotiating with developers. It may also give rise to a legal right to sue a developer for that difference in court if need be.

Public input is being received until November 25, 2010. Comments can be submitted electronically through the Regulatory Registry on the ServiceOntario website.  Give your two cents today. 

Hats off to Bob Aaron and Tarion for taking this step to enhance consumer protection!

10 reasons why condos should get legal advice about warranty claims

As the second part of our series of posts on new home warranty claims by condo corporations, we discuss why condos are better off seeking proper legal advice before making warranty claims for construction deficiencies.

Dealing with construction deficiencies is one of the largest and most critical tasks that the board of any new condominium must face in the first few years. It is therefore surprising to find that when it comes to dealing with construction deficiencies in the common elements of new condominiums, most condo boards simply start and follow the claims process under the Ontario New Home Warranty Plan (“Tarion”), a program that is notoriously ineffective, unresponsive and unsatisfactory when it comes to so many common issues faced by new condominiums.

Even more surprising is that condo boards often embark on the Tarion claims process without first asking the corporation’s lawyer to outline the pros and cons of proceeding with a claim to Tarion rather than commencing a lawsuit in court to recover damages for construction deficiencies. In fact, many corporations pursue much of the Tarion warranty claims process without the help of a lawyer at all, simply because it is not mandatory to use a lawyer for such cases.

The decision to reduce or avoid using lawyers in pursuing claims for construction deficiencies is typically made in order to save money. This is often a poor choice and can lead to a host of unfortunate scenarios, including the following:

1. Unsuccessfully pursuing claims clearly not covered by the Tarion warranty;
2. Pursuing claims of a value greater than the new monetary cap;
3. Missing the limitation period for commencing appeals of Tarion decisions;
4. Missing the new deadlines to request conciliation, resulting in unintentional withdrawals of warranty claims;
5. Missing the limitation period within which to commence an action in court;
6. Allowing the developer to divest itself of assets and fade away without making good on its financial obligations;
7. Being “outgunned” by the developer’s legal team;
8. Settling for far too little money or pushing too far for too much;
9. Unknowingly releasing the developer from other viable claims without receiving adequate value;
10. Getting bogged down in procedural quagmires; and (as a bonus reason),
11. Almost any combination of any of the above.

Any of these situations will likely cost the corporation many times more than the possible cost savings of embarking on the construction deficiencies claims process without the help of a suitably qualified lawyer. This is a classic example of condo boards being “penny wise, pound foolish.”

Experienced property managers recommend that their condominium boards obtain legal advice about pursuing construction deficiencies claims at an early stage. In addition to having too little time to properly address the important issues that arise in a construction deficiency claim, property managers are neither trained nor insured to advise boards on the different legal ramifications of proceeding by way of Tarion rather than pursuing a claim in court. As a result, property managers are generally not in a position to give proper advice on these important issues and they typically recognize the limits of their ability when it comes to these complex legal areas. A lawyer with expertise in condominium and construction law can provide the necessary advice and help devise an effective plan to guide boards and their managers through the construction deficiency maze.

In addition, an inherent conflict arises when a property manager appointed by the developer (while in control of the condo corporation before turnover) is asked to advise the post-turnover board as to whether or how to pursue a claim against the developer for construction deficiencies. It is arguable that a manager appointed by a developer-controlled board may be tempted to give advice to the owner-controlled board that favours the developer’s position, to the detriment of the corporation and its owners. For this reason alone, it is essential that the board engage a lawyer to obtain an objective, impartial opinion to consider and act upon. Managers should (and generally do) encourage this approach, as it effectively cleanses any appearance of possible impropriety or undue preference and ensures that the board receives good advice. Good managers focus on “managing” life for a new condo corporation and can readily spot situations that require the involvement of another professional or specialist. Conversely, managers that do not recommend that the board seek the involvement of legal counsel or who provide legal advice might find themselves the subject of a lawsuit for negligence if the warranty claims process unfolds badly and results in a high value claim being lost.

This is not to say that the property manager does not play a pivotal role in the entire process. The manager is key in supporting the entire effort and coordinating between the board, the engineers and counsel and in helping to move the claim forward. Perhaps even more important is the fact that the manager will help the board budget for a legal battle with the developer and rejuggle the financial plan where necessary so that the war chest doesn’t run dry at a critical juncture.

Finding costs savings is important too, and managers play an important part here as well. It is not strictly necessary for lawyers to have complete control over the construction deficiency claims process (especially the Tarion process) or be involved at every small step. In some situations, it is appropriate for the manager to step in to fill the void. Counsel should, however, be consulted early to help devise a workable strategy for the entire process and, subsequently, as and when needed throughout the process to keep the case on the rails. A close and effective working relationship between counsel and the property manager is essential to achieving a good result in any type of legal scenario.

Whether through the Tarion procedure or a lawsuit in court, pursuing claims for construction deficiencies is a process in which the condo directors, managers and owners invest substantial time, effort and money. The outcome of the process will play a large role in the condominium’s finances and its esthetic appearance and practical function for years to come. Embarking on the journey without the help of the corporation’s lawyer can put that investment at risk, cause delay and extra cost, and reduce the likelihood of a successful outcome. This, in turn, reflects poorly on the building and impacts the financial status and standing of the community. It may also demoralize the board, the manager and the owners alike and increase the chance of a dispute or conflict between those players. An unfavourable outcome of a long and hard-fought claim over construction deficiencies often gives rise to additional issues that distract everyone from the other important business that needs to be addressed in the condo’s early years. With so much at stake, responsible condo boards and property managers get their corporation’s lawyer involved before starting any warranty claim process.

Changes to Tarion warranty: What condo directors and managers need to know

123In addition to heat waves and holidays, this July brings important changes to coverage for new condominium projects under the Ontario New Home Warranty Plan, better known as Tarion. There is also news that additional changes to the warranty plan are being considered.

In this entry, we will cover new regulations now in force that affect the Tarion warranty. In a separate entry, we will discuss why condo corporations need to make better use of their lawyers when it comes to dealing with construction deficiency issues.

For the hat trick, our third entry on new home warranty coverage will feature Tarion’s call for submissions to their public consultation about the major structural defect warranty. Anyone wishing to get started on this topic now can get the details here. An August 12 deadline for submissions is looming.

Let’s start with the new regulations that are effective immediately.

New Customer Service Standard

The first change at Tarion is the creation of a customer service standard governing warranty claims for construction deficiencies in common elements of condominium corporations whose declarations and descriptions are registered on or after July 1, 2010. The particulars of the new customer service standard are set out in Ontario Regulation 274/10, which significantly amends Ontario Regulation 892, being the blueprint for the administration of the Tarion warranty plan program. No changes are made to the Condominium Act, 1998, of which section 44(10) provides that the filing of a performance audit constitutes a warranty claim for the items contained in that audit report.

A customer service standard for freehold homes and condo units has been in place since 2003 and reportedly works well, so a comparable standard for deficiencies in condominium common elements has been created. This standard provides timelines and processes for making and assessing warranty claims by condominium corporations in respect of their common elements. Until now, many warranty claims languished for several years for lack of clear timelines or processes, and condominium corporations could request inspections and re-inspections of unresolved warranty items several years past what developers considered to be a reasonable cut-off period. The new customer service standard creates fixed deadlines for work to be completed by the developer and for conciliation to be requested by the condo corporation.

For first-year warranty claim items, the vendor (developer) must complete repairs within the first 30 months after registration of the condo declaration. Repairs of second-year warranty items must also be completed by the same deadline as first-year items. If the work is not completed by that 30 month deadline, conciliation must be requested by the condo by the end of the 32nd month following registration, failing which (or if conciliation is started and cancelled), the warranty claim is considered to have been withdrawn.

Other features of the new customer service standard include the following:

• If the vendor does not perform work specified in the conciliation report within 90 days after delivery of the report, then Tarion pays for the work out of the guarantee fund.

• Tarion itself also has the power to conduct a conciliation at any time if it appears that either the condominium corporation or the vendor are not acting reasonably to resolve their issues related to first or second year warranty claims.

• The process for making and dealing with warranty claims for major structural defects (“MSDs”) is largely unchanged but is made somewhat simpler in terms of procedure.

• A new $1,000 fee will be payable by condominium corporations for a conciliation of a dispute, whether for a first year, second year or MSD claim. No fee was previously charged. Developers are required to pay a conciliation fee of $3,000, up from the previous fee of $1,000.

The creation of a deadline by which time repairs must be completed is a positive feature in the new standard. However, the deadline period of 30 months (2.5 years) after the registration of the declaration is far too long to be meaningful in most situations. Conversely, the short 60 day window within which condominium corporations must request a conciliation after the repair deadline expires is disproportionately short, especially considering that the condominium’s warranty claim is deemed to be abandoned thereafter. Many condominium corporations will unwittingly allow their warranty clams to be extinguished by this harsh “deemed abandonment” provision, particularly if they are not working closely with a lawyer.

New Monetary Cap

The second change to Tarion is the creation of a monetary maximum of $50 million that can be paid out by the Tarion guarantee fund for any one condominium project, where unit sales begin on or after July 1, 2010.

The nuts and bolts of the new cap are contained in Ontario Regulation 275/10, which adds a new subsection 6(12) to Regulation 892, being the document that sets out the administration of the Tarion warranty plan.

The stated purpose of this new cap is, of course, to reduce the likelihood of the Tarion guarantee fund being wiped out by a single bad project or a number of smaller condo projects that suffer catastrophic failure as a result of poor construction. In reality, the cap is designed to help stabilize the enrollment fees paid by developers.

For condos where unit sales began before July 1, 2010, the maximum recovery under the Tarion warranty for a condominium development is $300,000 per unit for construction deficiencies to the units plus the lesser of $50,000 per unit and $2.5 million in total for deficiencies in the construction of the common elements, with no overall limit. For example, a 300-unit condominium complex could potentially give rise to a covered liability of $92.5 million, as follows:

$90 million for deficiencies to the units (being 300 units x $300,000)

plus: $2.5 million for deficiencies to the common elements (being the lesser of $50,000 per unit ($50,000 x 300 = $15 million) and $2.5 million)

gives: $92.5 million

With the new amendments now in force, the cap for any one condominium project (where unit sales began on or after July 1, 2010) is $50 million in total for construction deficiencies in the units and the common elements. The practical result is that condominiums whose first unit was sold prior to July 1, 2010 and new condominiums with fewer than 160 units will not be affected by this new monetary cap in any significant way. New condominiums with more than 160 units, however, are at risk of not making a full monetary recovery from Tarion, and those with many more than 160 units are at risk of a much greater potential shortfall in absolute dollars.

While it would be an exceedingly rare case to see any condominium development require a payment from the guarantee fund anywhere close to $50 million, this monetary cap needs to be kept in mind and considered when devising the overall strategy in pursuing any claim for construction deficiencies at a large condominium.

Get Legal Advice

Boards and property managers at new condominiums that are subject to these new features of the Tarion warranty plan (i.e., declarations registered after July 1, 2010 or where unit sales begin after that date) should get legal advice at an early stage to assess their corporation’s legal position. While many aspects of the new customer service standard might help speed claims along and appear to simplify the process, the administration of warranty claims has become potentially more risky since claims can be lost simply by missing deadlines. Condominium corporations embarking on the Tarion warranty claims process are well-advised to get help from their lawyer. We’ll write more on this point in our next entry, where we will focus more closely on why many condo corporations choose not to seek counsel and why this is a bad idea.

Recap of 2010 PM Expo Springfest presentation

Like most people attending PM Expo Springfest at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre on April 28, I was a little surprised by the strong police presence both outside and inside the facility. It turns out that the extra security was for the Barrick Gold shareholders’ meeting taking place that morning in the conference hall next to ours.

Anyhow, there was an excellent turnout of over 1,500 property managers and condo directors, all of whom probably felt much safer knowing that this huge police detachment could probably protect us from any unhappy condo unit owners ready to riot over the carpet pattern chosen for the corridor refurbishment project in their buildings.

I was lucky to sit on an all-star panel sponsored by CCI-Toronto to talk about “What’s Right and What Needs Improvement in the World of Condos” from the perspectives of four different segments of the condo industry. Here’s a recap of some key takeaway points from the speakers:

 The property manager: Dean McCabe, Regional Manager at Brookfield Residential

  • Social media can enhance communication and transparency at your condo
  • Condo concierges must now comply with security guard regulations
  • Revision to Toronto waste levy may allow for better price comparison with private providers 
  • Hiring staff vs. contractors: pros and cons to each

The lawyer: Chris Jaglowitz, Lawyer at Gardiner Miller Arnold

  • Proposed changes to Tarion claim process includes new time limits and monetary caps
  • Workplace violence and harassment law comes into force June 15, 2010. Get ready!

The engineer: Sally Thompson, Group Leader at Halsall Associates

  • The real impact of HST: Average 5% increase for reserve fund, about 5-7% for operating
  • Consider including copper pipes as a deficiency item in condo performance audits

The insurance broker: Mark Shedden, VP at Atrens-Counsel Insurance Brokers:

  • Past year was bad for claims and capacity - Premiums/deductibles are on the rise
  • $2,500 is now standard deductible for most claims. $5K on the horizon
  • $75,000 deductible for water claims in large buildings now coming to the scene
  • Look into “condo providers liability insurance” as a low cost way to cover off potential risks from social events or activities

A PDF copy of our entire PowerPoint presentation is available for download here.

Cheers to Pam Boyce at Brookfield for moderating this panel and thanks to everyone who came to our presentation.   If you weren't able to join us, make it a point to attend PM Expo on December 1-3, 2010 and plan to visit Springfest next year!