Here is an article from Sat. Jan 19, 2008 edition of the Toronto Star.

This would never have gotten this far if the county chief building inspector had did his job.

BTW, I have a formal complain in against the Chief Building Inspector of Norfolk County Ontario. It seems like the just do a cursory inspection, sign off, and when you take possession and find things that do not meet the building code. These officials will say anything, and back the builder against you when you complain ...we all know that most builders are decievers and liars.... and these building inspectors seem to be sleeping in the same bed.

I will keep the board updated on what is happening. It looks like the county involved in the Star article replaced their chief building official...after the fact.

Lack of contract invites heartbreak
TheStar.com - living - Lack of contract invites heartbreak

January 19, 2008
Bob Aaron

For Ken and Lori Bryden, the climax of a sad and costly tale is set for Jan. 29; that's the day the local sheriff in Brockville is slated to auction off their dream home-turned-nightmare.

They never even got to move in.

The saga began in 2002 when the family hired a close friend, Bob Pollard, to build a house for them on North Shore Rd. in Westport, Ont. Relying on goodwill rather than a solid contract and detailed plans, the parties agreed to build the 2,000-square-foot house for $200,000.

Excavation was completed and the footings poured in August 2002. But it wasn't long before disagreements arose about alleged defects with the footings, foundation, dormer framing, porch roofline and other issues. All work stopped in December of that year.

In 2003, Pollard sued the Brydens claiming $81,000 for work and materials supplied to the house, and the Brydens counterclaimed for $249,070, the amount they wanted to correct deficiencies and complete construction.

A seven-day trial took place last January before Justice Kenneth E. Pedlar in Brockville. After reviewing the evidence, the judge awarded the builder $78,000 for work performed, despite the owners' claim that the work was defective.

In a 6,300-word decision, the judge ruled that a number of construction matters were incomplete and needed remedial work, but Pollard was entitled to be paid for work done to the date building stopped.

According to a statement issued recently by the Brydens, the former chief building official of the Township of Rideau Lakes declared in 2002 that the house met all building code requirements while it was under construction. The Brydens say he was wrong and recently commissioned four engineering reports that indicate significant deficiencies with the structure.

Based on those reports, the house is now subject to an Order to Comply, a Stop Work Order, an Unsafe Order and an Order Not to Occupy, all issued by the new chief building official of the township.

Today, the Brydens face a judgment against them for damages and costs totalling about $120,000, plus $300,000 or so to finish the house – on top of their lawyer's bills. For five years they've paid taxes and a mortgage on an empty house, hoping for help from local and provincial politicians.

No assistance is available from the Tarion Warranty Corp. Tarion spokesman Robert Mitchell says there are two kinds of new home warranty coverage relevant to cases like this, where a property owner hires a contractor to build a house.

Financial loss protection is available when homeowners advance money to a builder who reneges on the contract, leaving them with less than they paid for. This wasn't available to the Brydens, Mitchell says, because the court and the Licence Appeal Tribunal ruled "the value of the work done by the builder exceeded what (the Brydens) had paid" and, as a result, "the Brydens did not suffer any financial loss."

Tarion's construction coverage is not available to the Brydens until the house is finished. Under the governing legislation, an incomplete contract home is ineligible for the warranty until the construction contract is "substantially performed," and the house is occupied.

In the fall of 2005, Pollard was convicted in provincial court and fined $750 for failing to enrol the home under the Tarion warranty program.

For now, the house is incomplete and exposed to the elements. The outstanding municipal orders will not permit occupancy until the problems identified by the engineers have been rectified.

To collect the money owed to him, Pollard has obtained a writ of seizure and sale. Acting on the writ, the sheriff will auction off the Bryden's equity in the property.

The lesson to be learned from this tale is to never retain a contractor to build or even renovate a home without having a full set of construction plans prepared by an architect or engineer, and a detailed contract. Standard industry template contracts are available from the Canadian Construction Documents Committee (www.ccdc.org).

I also recommend hiring an architect or other professional to monitor ongoing construction.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Aaron is a Toronto real estate lawyer whose column appears Saturdays. He can be reached at bob@aaron.ca. Visit his website at aaron.ca.

In Nov. 2007, CTV's W-Five aired an exposé of new home construction problems across Canada. Municipal inspections were highlighted as a key problem in Canada in this W-Five exposé. The W-Five segment is entitled "From Haven to Hell" and may be viewed on the W-Five web-site here.

What I find interesting about Bob Aaron's article regarding Rick and Lori Bryden's devastating situation is that the law seems to protect the builder in that he was able to charge whatever he wanted and produce whatever he wanted, without any accountability at all.

Even with a contract, new homeowners are not protected against shoddy workmanship or Ontario Building Code defects so I am not sure on what Mr. Aaron is basing his opinion.

If the courts could rule that Rick and Lori Brydeon owed their builder "X" amount of dollars for partially constructing a new home, that judgement had to be based on the existence of a verbal contract. Why does the law allow payment to builders on the basis of a verbal contract but denies the homeowners the protection homeowners receive if they DO have a contract with a builder?

It seems to me that the Ontario Government and the Ontario court system has the whole new home industry shaped so that homeowners who purchase a newly built home inside a contract are not protected because the New Home Warranty system is primarily directed by builders, and homeowners who arrange to have a newly built home outside a contract are subject to having the courts rule that the builder can charge whatever he wants for a structure, even when the New Home Warranty Program and expert bank appraisers say there has been a much lower amount spent on construction and materials.

Maybe it's time taxpayers and new homeowners stood up and said we don't believe Ontario operates under the principles that normally govern democratic jurisdictions. Maybe if victims begin to expose underlying injustice behind cases like the Bryden's then maybe the focus will be taken off the builder, who is, after all, only getting away with what the law and the government allows him or her to get away with!!

I have a formal complaint against Norfolk County over the actions of their building inspector and the actions of the chief building inspector. The chief building inspector says he is the who has final say in interpreting the Ontario Building Code in Norfolk County. When you don't get satisfaction from the chief building inspector, go to his manager, along with copies to the mayor and councillors. THe OBC is available on-line so read and use the code to your benefit. If you want a copy of what I sent the county ..use the message system with your email address ..and I will send you a copy..... In the meantime, let all your friends and neighbours know about this site