Category Archives: Consumers’ Reform

Good Consumer Policy Needs to Include Consumers at the Table

Each year since 2011 I’ve attended Tarion’s Annual Public Meeting.

What is Tarion? It’s a government agency originally set up in 1976 to protect new home buyers.

Each year I ask this question at the Annual Meeting: why are there no consumer advocates on your board of directors?

Each year, a variation of the same vague non-answer is given, talking about a “matrix of skills”, and ministerial appointees.

Who’s representing the perspective of new home buyers who’ve found their homes fraught with construction defects, such as leaking basements, flooding, mould, radon, and inadequate heating? This is a living nightmare for anyone, families with small children, seniors, or those with health issues.

Who’s on Tarion’s board?

After having to click through eleven separate links to read each board member’s lengthy biography, we see the board is composed of:

-a banking and insurance executive as Chair, an accountant, a lawyer, a commercial real estate executive, another lawyer with a government relations background, the head of a building company, a real estate consultant, a technology specialist, a communications executive and former head of a Conservative private club, an executive of the builder Tridel, a former builder lobbyist, and a former politician and lawyer.

Great. But who represents the new home buyer’s perspective? Who speaks for consumers who paid over $1.2 million for a newly-built home, and find themselves with a cracked and leaking basement floor, inadequate heating, and black mould?

How many of these executives have spent one night in a house like that, after forking over their entire life savings for it?

Even if we look at the people running the day to day operations, the “Leadership Team” of Tarion, we see no consumer advocates.

There again you have to have click through twelve additional links to see the background of these executives. Why the cumbersome hide and seek of separate links? Why not post two sentences summarizing each person’s expertise below each smiling photo inviting us to call them by their first names?

We see the team is composed of the CEO who’s a former long-time Tarion in-house lawyer, then two more former Tarion lawyers, three accountants, two corporate governance professionals, two information technology specialists, another former real estate lawyer, and a business planner.

Has anyone in this group ever spent their life savings on a new home with construction defects? I see none.

Why are there no engineers, or building technologists, independent from industry lobby groups or builders?

Some highly qualified engineers, and an executive of a top home warranty provider told me they never even got to the interview stage with their Tarion applications, some never even heard back at all.

There seems to be a deliberate attempt in board selection to steer clear of anyone who could make Tarion a true a consumer protection agency, help consumers get their homes fixed, and hold builders accountable for badly-built homes.

The issues which come up for the board and leadership team’s consideration aren’t properly informed by the consumer perspective. They’re seen through the lens of the people I’ve listed above, builders, lawyers, accountants, technology specialists, and business planners.

How can issues of importance to consumers be properly heard or understood?

This seems a deliberate plan to keep consumer concerns about badly-built homes at a distance. If you don’t fully understand the problems, you’re not likely to have to address them either. A gift to shoddy builders.

No wonder a policy such as homeowners not being allowed to record inspections in their own homes has remained on the Tarion books for so long. It has to be there to protect Tarion’s employees, we’re told.

Complaints about the internal ombudsperson not being independent or impartial, are largely ignored. Move on, case closed, Tarion will not be answering any more of your emails.

Some former Tarion board members and ministry officials have said consumers are often seen as “difficult” and “angry”, so they’re side-lined. Statements like this are not only wrong, but condescending to new home buyers, the main stakeholders Tarion was created to protect.

Why don’t the board members attend the Annual Public Meetings, or even attend via the virtual option? Last year, questions for the VP Finance couldn’t be answered because he wasn’t there, only provided a video, and there was no sign or mention at all of the internal ombudsperson. What does that say about the willingness of these executives to listen to the people they say they represent?

Why are consumers forbidden to contact board members, except via the corporate secretary, with many inquiries never answered? There should be at least an email contact address for the board Chair.

Tarion has never made a credible case it’s a consumer protection agency. Many consumers don’t see the value in it at all.

Government should either end this monopoly “administrator”, and give new home buyers a choice in real warranty providers, (as recommended in the 2017 Tarion Review), or make Tarion’s mandatory fees optional. At a very minimum, put a majority of independent consumer advocates on the board.

“You are what you do, not what you say you’ll do. (C.G.Jung)




Filed under Consumers' Reform, Tarion

Listen to the Other Side

Conde Nast Collection, Cartoon by Stan Hunt.

Conde Nast Collection, Cartoon by Stan Hunt.


After buying a new home or condo in Ontario, a growing number of consumers say they’ll never to do it again.

Why not?

Many have discovered construction defects in their new homes, and the government-mandated Tarion warranty they bought – in a fee passed on to them by the builder – didn’t compensate them for the defects. The warranty is supposed to “guarantee” new homes against construction defects, and “back-stop” the builder’s obligations to deliver the home “free of defects in workmanship and materials”.  Yet many consumers have found themselves on their own, paying for defects they unfortunately discovered after the Tarion 2-year warranty expired, or which didn’t fit the legal definition of a “major structural defect”.  Further, many who appealed Tarion’s warranty decisions to the “License Appeal Tribunal” (LAT) found themselves up against not one, but two lawyers – Tarion’s and the builder’s – and lost their appeals.

It doesn’t take much to see this is not a level playing field for consumers. It’s not often about who is right, or who is telling the truth: its about legal tactics, with which consumers have no experience. Unrepresented consumers are very vulnerable in the courtroom, and their failure rate is  dismally high, close to 90%. (CPBH analysis of the LAT, 2013)

What continues to frustrate consumers is that their point of view rarely seems to be taken seriously in the policy making process, either at Tarion or the Ministry of Consumer Services. Lip service is given, heads nod, e-mails are filed (or deleted), and little improvement follows. Tarion goes through the motions of Annual Public Meeting question periods, jargon-heavy “consultations” on their website, but little improvement comes out of recommendations made by consumers, consumer advocates and consumer organizations.  MPPs have called out for reform in the Ontario Legislature, underlining that Tarion has not been subject to meaningful reform for its entire existence, 37 years.

The lack of actual consumer participation in policy decisions is not surprising. There are no consumers on Tarion’s board, and no consumer watchdogs are permitted to oversee its activities. An internal committee called the “Consumer Advisory Council”, operates seemingly behind closed doors, and refuses direct contact with consumers. Meanwhile, the affluent and well-staffed building lobbies – BILD and OHBA –  make sure their industry’s interests are well understood and well communicated to boardroom decision-makers. Eight of Tarion’s thirteen board seats are occupied by OHBA builders, and several key building  executives write regular paid columns in many of Ontario’s influential newspapers.

So WHO is representing the consumer point of view at the decision-making table? Builders. Yes, builders, and a handful of lawyers and corporate executives. According to Tarion’s long-time former board Chair, builders are the best ones to represent consumer interests, as he stated for the public record at Tarion’s Public Meeting on April 25, 2013)

Perhaps builders who are supposed to be representing consumer interests will recall a statement made by one of their executive board members of the OHBA, Oct. 20th, 2004 in a “Strategic Review Committee Paper” (pg. 16, para. 5):  “…many members had expressed concerns (…) and that it was important that the bar not be lowered to the point that consumers do not place value on the benefits of warranty coverage.”

Consumer trust and confidence in the new home building industry and the mandatory warranty coverage is key.  Builders, building industry lobbies, Tarion as industry regulator, and the Ministry as “oversight” authority, all have an interest in listening to and  properly understanding the consumer’s interests. They need to take consumer input seriously and involve actual consumers in the policy-making process.

A builder’s version of what consumers think is not the consumer’s point of view.  We’re not all glossy magazine-crazed, “dreamers” obsessed with up-grades, complaining about paint smudges on mirrors.

Consumers deserve to get what they paid for: a new home “free of defects in workmanship and materials”, promised under Ontario law, and the warranty coverage they are obliged to pay for by law. Regulators of the industry shouldn’t end up subsidizing shoddy builders, and making the consumer pay for their wrong-doing. Or making it easier for these builders to escape accountability,  and providing incomplete builder track records to the public. Who would seriously believe that the body charged with regulating the building industry should be dominated by those it is supposed to be regulating? This is a classic case of the butcher inspecting his own meat.

“Listen to the other side”, or “audi alteram partem” is one of the fundamental principles of fairness and justice. If consumers are not properly represented at policy-making tables, the policies made by a builder-dominated board will never protect anyone’s interests but their own, packaged in consumer protection spin.


Leave a comment

Filed under Consumers' Reform, Tarion Warranty Corporation

Sound familiar?

New Yorker Cartoon, Conde Nast, by C.Weyant

New Yorker Cartoon, Conde Nast, by C.Weyant

1 Comment

Filed under Consumers' Reform, Tarion Warranty Corporation

Is Tarion’s in-house “ombudsman” impartial?

Many consumers have voiced dissatisfaction to Tarion about its internal “Office of the Ombudsman”. Many have told  Tarion senior management the term “ombudsman” shouldn’t be used by an employee whose responsibility it is to investigate his own employer.  In order to be credible, this office requires complete independence and impartiality.

Often Tarion’s “ombudsman” has to seek approval from Tarion’s own senior management before investigating matters brought to his office by concerned consumers. By the “ombudsman’s” own admission at the April 30th, 2014 Annual Public Meeting, his office is “dependent” on Tarion’s board, and 8 out of 13 are builders.

What’s going on here?

As Mr. Marin, the Ombudsman of Ontario, stated in a paper to the “Standing Committee on General Government” in 2006: Under no circumstances should ombudsmen be employees of the organizations they oversee“.  He adds that many organizations use the term ombudsman to “create public relations departments cloaked in the mantle of ombudsmen.”

Why should Tarion be an exception to this rule?

Many consumers have relied on Tarion’s ombudsman as an “independent investigator of complaints” about Tarion, which is the definition of an ombudsman. But they have sadly found he will not investigate, or says the matter is beyond his mandate.

We get it. Then the name of this department should be changed.  The title “ombudsman” gives consumers the reasonable expectation of  independence and impartiality in any investigation. But under its current reporting and pay structure, this office seems unable to provide a credible investigation of its own employer’s business practices.

A Compliance Officer, reporting to the Ministry of Consumer Services, to make sure all rules and procedures are followed at Tarion, and all parties treated fairly under the rules, would seem to make more sense. This suggestion has been brought to Tarion’s senior management in writing several times,  twice by consumers at Tarion’s Annual Public Meetings. But it has been repeatedly ignored or brushed aside in favour of the current in-house “ombudsman’s office”, which seems a fool’s errand.

1 Comment

Filed under Consumers' Reform, Tarion Warranty Corporation

Consumers and their MPP’s (NDP) try to get answers from Tarion executives!

TARION’s Annual Public Meeting to be held today April 30, 2014 has been overwhelmed with consumer response to attend and ask questions. Tarion will allot only 1 hour for questions/answers. With over 250 consumers attending in person, and over 160+ via Webcast, Tarion finally agreed at the last minute to extend the meeting room to accommodate consumers traveling from all over Ontario.

Here are some of the questions MPP Rosario Marchese (whose Bill 139 calls for greater transparency and oversight of Tarion) Tweeted to his followers today, which he says should be asked of Tarion at its Annual Public Meeting:

–  Why the increase in “illegal building” (new homes built without warranty), if Tarion says its clamping down on it?

–  Why has Tarion not hired inspectors to inspect their registered builders work, while the law (the ONHWPA) requires it?

–  How can Tarion serve the consumers who pay is bills while being controlled by the developers it is supposed to regulate?

– The Province makes consumers pay fees to Tarion, which has a monopoly on home warranties. How do we know they are getting value for money?

Why has Tarion failed to address transparency problems reveled in this Toronto Star investigation (July 6, 2013)?

–  Average pay at Tarion over 100,000 per year; How much goes to CEO, COO, and 9 Vice-Presidents?  (Tarion is not subject to the Sunshine List, and is not obliged to disclose executive pay.)

“Is Tarion another ORNGE?” If not, will Tarion open its books and prove it?

These questions deserve answers. Consumers will do their best to get them at the Annual Public Meeting.


Leave a comment

Filed under Consumers' Reform, Tarion Warranty Corporation

From ‘The New Yorker’, Conde Nast cartoons:

You know who you are!

You know who you are!

Leave a comment

Filed under Consumers' Reform

Whose transparency… for whom?

Source: 'New Yorker Magazine cartoon, Conde Nast, by Mankoff.'

Source: ‘New Yorker Magazine cartoon, Conde Nast, by Mankoff.’

Leave a comment

Filed under Consumers' Reform

MPP Barrett speaking to the Legislature on April 17, 2014, re BILL 190

MPP Barrett (PC) makes a compelling case for expanding the Auditor General of Ontario’s powers to look into TARION WARRANTY CORPORATION.  In its entire 37 year history, Tarion has never been subject to an independent Audit by the Auditor General of Ontario. Perhaps a few cobwebs there?
Since the Liberal government continues to promise all Ontarians “accountability and transparency” in government, to exclude Tarion from this scrutiny is baffling.

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.”

by Thomas Paine, British/American writer, 1737-1809

Leave a comment

April 21, 2014 · 8:15 pm