I am here tonight to speak with regard to my experience with the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.  I have been a home inspector for just under a decade.

In December of 1994, I commenced the process of resolving a defective septic system for my client in King City, Ontario. The septic system failed in the summer of 1988, only months after my client purchased her new home.

After evaluating and verifying several contradictions between the design and construction of the septic system, I wrote the ONHWP. It took six months just to get a site visit. It took 9 months before the Warranty Rep. attempted to review my clients file at Region of York, On-site Sewage Systems Branch, they being the authority having jurisdiction over septic systems under the Environmental Protection Act. The Region’s file repeatedly pointed to septic system failure as a result of design and construction defects. A field note in the file from the builder’s own engineer, who had both designed and inspected the septic system, made references to construction deficiencies. Despite all this evidence, on July 30, 1997, not only did the WP refuse the claim, but the Warranty Rep. stated, "You have failed to prove to the ONHWP that the existing damage to the septic system is the result of a breach of vendor’s warranty; rather than the result of addition work undertaken by you, the owners." The WP has never to this day provided any physical evidence to substantiate that my client did any damage to the septic system.

Fortunately, I had kept Mr. Klees as well as the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations advised of my client problem as early as September, 1995. Shortly after the WP rejected the claim, I met with Mr. Klees. Mr. Klees clearly recognized that there was a stench in the air, and it was not coming from my client’s septic system. I commend Mr. Klees for what he did next. Mr. Klees called and wrote David Tsubouchi, then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As a result of Mr. Klees persistence, Tsubouchi’s office finally took me seriously, and effectively forced the WP to make an effort to properly evaluate my client’s septic system.

The same day the WP’s engineer’s completed her report, the WP reversed its decision and warranted my clients claim. I however, went one further. I continued to take the WP to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, where on February 10, 1998, CRAT formally ordered the WP to either repair or replace the septic system by the end of July, 1998. However, only two weeks before this July completion date, the WP again reversed its decision, and ignored the CRAT order. The WP never made an appeal under CRAT’s rules and procedures, it just ignored them and advised that it would only install a new septic system provided that my client paid $20,000 of the $30,000 it would cost for a new septic system. I ask everyone here tonight, What is the purpose of going to CRAT and getting an order if ONHWP can just ignore it with no fear of penalty. It was not until after we went back to CRAT in October of 1998, that the builder finally contacted my client and began to negotiate a settlement. I am proud to advise that in August of 1999, 11 years after the septic system failed, the builder finally paid my client $26,000 for the replacement cost of the septic system.

By the time my client received the $26,000, the cost for legal and consulting fees exceeded $65,000. To my knowledge, the WP has only offered a mere $2,500 toward the cost of resolving this claim.

The WP circulates publications that make statements such as, "When it comes to resolving homeowner/builder disputes, ONHWP acts as an impartial referee, objectively hearing both sides before advising the parties or making a formal ruling." and, "When a dispute goes to conciliation, an on-site meeting is arranged between the homeowner, the builder, and a trained ONHWP Warranty Representative. The purpose of this meeting is to determine whether the item in question is covered by the warranty. "

Yet, on May 17, 1999, Carole Bennett, then vice-president of the ONHWP, wrote me advising, "There were many issues and statements of fact in dispute in this case, and set out by reputable professionals on both sides and we relied at first on the engineering advice provided by the vendor’s engineer."

Something is very wrong when an organization with a government mandate to protect the consumer chooses the obviously biased word of a builders’ engineer over that of the government authority having jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Act. If anything, Ms. Bennett’s words certify that the ONHWP is little more than a builder run, builder biased, organization that is neither impartial or objective.

For over eleven years, my client was forced to illegally use her septic system without a use permit. Moreover, for over eleven years my client was forced to live in her house with no occupancy permit because she could not get a use permit.

In February 1999, I contacted Tom Alton, one of 15 members of the WP’s board of directors. After providing Mr. Alton with detailed information of what my client went through, Mr. Alton appeared very concerned. Mr. Alton conveyed to me that he estimated that the WP had spent an excess $50,000 fighting my client’s claim. It only cost $26,000 to replace the septic system. Unfortunately, shortly after Mr. Alton became involved, his position as a member of the board of directors ended.

I have repeatedly asked the WP what qualifications its Warranty Rep. had in order to do septic system evaluations. The question remains unanswered.

I cannot understand how it came to be that ONHWP would devote so much effort fighting a claim the WP admits is a builder defect. It is my opinion that the WP’s was afraid that I might be able to take a long since expired claim and convert it into a valid claim worth tens of thousands of dollars. I find it difficult to believe that my client is the only one. I believe that if the ONHWP continues to deal with the consumer the way it dealt with my client, its days are numbered.

The best advise I can give a home-buyer is that the only one that is going to protect your money is yourself. Do your own research. Make dam sure that the builder you choose has a quality product, is in good financial health, and deals with customer problems in good faith. If the builder has a track record of hiding when problems arise, you may not just end up fighting the builder, you may end up fighting the very system that is supposed to protect you.

One last thing to remember, eight out of the fifteen members on the WP’s board of directors, are members of the Ontario Home Builders Associations. Even better, all fifteen of these directors are elected by the members of the Ontario Home Builders Association.

Who this Warranty Program ultimately protects is clear.

Mr. Klees. Your efforts undoubtedly created the most influential turning point to my efforts. You have my sincere gratitude.