„Their agreement did not meet the requirements of Section 4 of Tarion`s addendum, which were clearly known to the parties at the time of the agreement with the amendment agreement of August 3, 2017. Their aborted efforts to retroactively obtain the January 11, 2018 deadline under the interim closing agreement have no legal value. Proportional share of costs resulting from an agreement between the owner and the municipality on the Planning Act, as mentioned above, TARION regulates and implements the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. The TARION warranty is only available to buyers who purchase from registered owners and homes registered with TARION. March 20, 2018 Mr. Ingarra began to apply on the date set by [Previn] in violation of [SPG],b) to the finding that January 11, 2018 was not a valid closing date for apS and that as such[Ingarra], he did not violate the [SPG], and c) required Previn to complete the corresponding sale of the APS. In this sense, it is very likely that you buy yourself a new build. You may appreciate the fact that you can choose certain surfaces or that you will be the first homeowners to live in the accommodation. You may see it as an investment opportunity. Whatever your reasons, it is important to understand that the purchase of a new building, unlike a resale property, comes with a number of unique additional obligations for the purchase of new buildings. At 4 a) of Tarion`s addendum, it is stated that the addition is a „framework.“ It null and voids unconfirmed changes to the buyer`s choice. Section 4 gave Mr. Ingarra the option to cancel the GSP.
He decided not to exercise this option – three times. As such, Previn was within its rights to terminate the GSP. „Before Previn Homes terminated the purchase and sale agreement on January 17, 2018, Mr. Ingarra had the option of cancelling the newly set date, as the amendment did not comply with page 4 of the addendum. The completion date of April 11, 2018 is then considered deferred. But he didn`t do it explicitly… In particular, the application judge found that the parties` prorogation agreements (through counsel) were not concluded and did not replace Tarion`s addendum because a) they were not formalized as amendments to the GSP in accordance with Section 4 of the Tarion addendum and (b) were cancelled by Mr. Ingarra, who had commenced the notification. The Court of Appeal agreed that the addendum should provide a framework for the extension of the time limit and that the parties would not comply. However, the court was not satisfied that this was fatal to the agreement reached. The court found that the addition did not render any non-compliant amendments unenforceable. In fact, see 4 (a) of the addendum, it was found that „any change is not consistent with this section is non-adacuitable for the cancellation option.“ As a result, the purchaser was given the opportunity to cancel the agreed deadline for April 11, but did not do so.