Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

Statutory Interpretation - Consumer Legislation

. Wu v. Suevilia Development Corporation

In Wu v. Suevilia Development Corporation (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered an appeal from two dismissed summary judgment claims, one for a breached APS (and forfeiture of the deposit) by the vendor, and a counter-claim for return of the deposit by the purchaser. The case was heavily-influenced by the 'pre-construction sales' provisions of the New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Here, the court considers the statutory interpretation status of the ONHWPA, being consumer legislation:

[46] I agree with Mr. Wu that the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and its regulations are remedial, consumer protection legislation requiring a broad and liberal interpretation in light of their object and purpose: Ontario New Home Warranty Program v. Lukenda (1991), 1991 CanLII 7167 (ON CA), 2 O.R. (3d) 675 (C.A.), at para. 7. Such objects and purposes have been recognized to include protecting purchasers from vendors who do not proceed expeditiously with completion of a house, or who seek to use the fact of noncompletion to extricate themselves from an agreement in a rising market; and also, to better clarify and prescribe the conditions under which agreements of purchase and sale can be terminated: Wong v. Greyrock (Saddlebrook) Building Corp. (1993), 34 R.P.R. (2d) 215 (Ont. Gen. Div.), at para. 18; Reddy, at para. 23.

[47] Nonetheless, as noted in Reddy [SS: Reddy v. 1945086 Ontario Inc., 2019 ONSC 2554], the Special Committee that conducted the review that led to the reforms that brought about O. Reg. 165/08 acknowledged that the imposition of regulatory warranties should not unduly favour purchasers in a manner that is onerous for builders or that fails to recognize the inevitability of certain delays in new home construction: Final Report of the Special Committee on Delayed Closing, released February 2007, at p. 19.

. Co-Operators Insurance Company v. Bennett

In Co-Operators Insurance Company v. Bennett (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court cites authority for auto insurance law being a form of consumer legislation:

[29] Moreover, the LAT’s interpretation is consistent with the consumer protection objective of insurance legislation: Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. 2002 SCC 30 at para. 11.