Published 11 September 2026 · By Jatin Dua, Broker of Record, RE/MAX Quantum Realty
There is no longer a claims avenue for an Ontario homeowner who discovers Kitec plumbing today. The class action settled in 2011, the deadline to file a claim was 9 January 2020, claims received after it are rejected, and the settlement fund’s final distribution has been approved. Agents and consumers still routinely believe money is available. It is not, and telling a buyer otherwise is a statement you will have to account for. What remains live is insurance — insurers commonly refuse, surcharge or limit coverage on a building with Kitec — and replacement cost, which is commonly quoted in the five to fifteen thousand dollar range. The clause library gives you two tools: a seller warranty and a buyer acknowledgement.
The correction that is worth more than the clauses
An agent called me last spring about a condo with Kitec risers. Her buyer was nervous and she had reassured him, in writing, that there was a settlement fund he could claim against. She had heard it from another agent, who had heard it from a home inspector. It has been repeated so many times in this industry that it has the texture of a fact.
It has not been true since January 2020. The class action settled in 2011 and the deadline to submit a claim was 9 January 2020. Claims after that date are rejected. The fund’s final distribution has been approved. Whatever the fund was going to do for people, it has finished doing.
So the first job on a Kitec file is to stop repeating the wrong thing. If your buyer has been told there is money waiting, correct it, and correct it in writing, because the number of buyers who have made a purchase decision on that belief is not small.
The timeline, and where the industry’s memory stopped
Kitec systems were installed between 1995 and 2007, and the product came off the market in 2005. That gives you a rough age band for the buildings at issue: much of the affected stock in the GTA is mid-rise and high-rise condominium built or plumbed in that window, plus a spread of freehold homes.
| When | What happened | What it means on a file today |
|---|---|---|
| 1995 to 2007 | Kitec systems installed in Canadian buildings | Age of the building narrows, but does not answer, whether the system is present |
| 2005 | Product off the market | Nothing lawfully installed after this, so post-2007 construction is generally not the concern |
| 2011 | Class action settled | This is where most agents’ knowledge stops |
| 9 January 2020 | Claims deadline | Claims after this date are rejected. There is no claims avenue for a homeowner discovering Kitec now |
| Since then | Final distribution of the fund approved | The compensation question is closed. Insurance and replacement cost are what remain |
Identification is not your job and should never be presented as your opinion. The markings on the pipe and the fittings are what a licensed plumber reads, and on a condominium the unit plumbing and the building risers can be different stories. If you want an answer, the answer comes from a plumber or from the corporation’s records, in writing.
The short version
The settlement is finished. The two things that still cost your client money are insurance and replacement. Frame every Kitec conversation around those two, and put the correction about the claims deadline in writing before the offer goes in.
KIT-1: what the seller is actually promising
KIT-1 (Seller Warrants and Represents – No Kitec Plumbing on Property) is the clause you reach for when your seller’s position is that the property is clean. Pull the exact wording from your own OREA member copy; what matters here is its shape.
It does three things and they are not equally strong. First, it is an unqualified promise by the seller that they did not install Kitec pipe, fittings or systems during their ownership. That part the seller knows for certain. Second, a broader statement, and this one is qualified by knowledge: so far as the seller is aware, no Kitec has ever been present anywhere in the structures on the land. That part the seller mostly does not know, and the qualifier is what makes it signable. Third, it is expressed to survive closing and not merge, so it does not die at completion.
There is a fourth element that matters enormously in condominium and multi-unit buildings: where the building is a multiple unit building, the warranty is expressed to apply only to the part of the building that is the subject of the transaction. Read that twice. Your seller is not warranting anything about the risers, the common elements, or the eleven other units on the floor.
On the knowledge qualifier, the case to know is Coppendale v. Mills, 2025 ONSC 5192. As reported, a warranty given to the best of the seller’s knowledge was held to speak to the seller’s knowledge at the time of signing, not at closing. The buyers there had waived their inspection condition, discovered basement moisture before completion, refused to close, and lost their twenty thousand dollar deposit along with substantial damages. The lesson transfers directly: a knowledge-qualified warranty is a statement about a person’s mind, not a guarantee about a building.
KIT-2: the acknowledgement, and when it is the honest clause
KIT-2 (Buyer Acknowledges – Kitec Plumbing on Property) runs the other way. It records that the property has had Kitec installed, that the seller makes no representation or warranty about the state of repair as regards that plumbing, and that the buyer takes the property as it stands, in as-is condition.
Agents treat an as-is acknowledgement as a defeat for the buyer. I do not see it that way. Where Kitec is known to be present, KIT-2 puts the fact in the agreement in black and white. That is better for a buyer than silence, because silence is where later arguments about who knew what are born. What KIT-2 does not do is price the problem. That happens in the number on the front page, and if your buyer signs the acknowledgement without having had a plumber quote the replacement, they have accepted a liability they have not measured.
Replacement is commonly quoted in the five to fifteen thousand dollar range, and where in that range a particular unit lands depends on size, access, how much drywall comes down and whether risers are involved. Get a quote, not a rumour.
Choosing between them, and the option nobody writes
| Your situation | Clause | What it gets you |
|---|---|---|
| Seller says the property has no Kitec and you have no reason to doubt it | KIT-1 | An unqualified promise about the seller’s own installations, a knowledge-qualified promise about the rest, surviving closing, limited to the part of the building being sold |
| Kitec is known to be present and the buyer is proceeding | KIT-2 | The fact recorded in the agreement, no seller warranty on state of repair, and an as-is acceptance by the buyer |
| Nobody actually knows | Neither, yet | A plumbing inspection condition and, in a condo, the corporation’s records. Guessing in a schedule is not a substitute for finding out |
| Condominium where the risers may be affected | KIT-1 or KIT-2 plus a status certificate condition | The unit-level position from the clause, and the building-level position from the certificate, reserve fund study and any special assessment history |
The third row is the one I care about. The most common Kitec drafting error I see is an agent choosing between KIT-1 and KIT-2 when the honest answer on the file is that nobody has looked. A warranty from a seller who does not know, or an acknowledgement from a buyer who has not had it priced, is paperwork standing in for diligence.
The short version
KIT-1 is for when the seller’s position is clean. KIT-2 is for when the problem is known and accepted. If neither is true, the answer is a condition and a plumber, not a clause.
The condominium problem
Condominiums are where Kitec gets expensive, and where the multi-unit limitation in KIT-1 does its damage quietly. Your seller can give a perfectly honest warranty about the plumbing inside the unit while the building’s risers are a known problem the corporation has been budgeting for.
The building-level answer lives in the status certificate package: the reserve fund study, the corporation’s disclosure of planned major repairs, any special assessment already levied or contemplated, and the minutes if you can get them. That is a document review with a real timeline attached — the corporation has time to produce the package and the buyer’s lawyer needs time after that — which is why a status certificate condition that is too short is a recurring problem. The mechanics are in the status certificate condition post.
If you take one thing from this section: on a condo file, a Kitec clause without a status certificate condition is half an answer.
Insurance is the live issue now
With compensation off the table, insurance is where Kitec bites. It is common industry practice for insurers to refuse coverage, apply a surcharge, or limit or exclude water damage coverage where Kitec is present. That is an underwriting practice, not a rule or a regulation, and it varies between insurers and over time — which is exactly why it has to be checked for the specific property rather than assumed.
The practical consequence matters more than the principle. A buyer who cannot bind insurance cannot close, because their lender will require it. So on any file where Kitec is known or suspected, the insurance question is not a post-closing detail. It belongs in the conditional period, alongside financing, and the buyer should be told in writing to speak to their insurer before waiving anything.
Disclosure, stigma and your exposure as the registrant
Whether a known Kitec system in a particular building amounts to a latent defect rendering the property unfit for habitation or dangerous is a legal question and not one I will resolve for you. What is settled enough to work from is the framework. Patent defects need not be disclosed under caveat emptor, but actively concealing one removes that protection. Latent defects rendering a property unfit or dangerous must be disclosed, and where a seller’s agent knows of such a fact they must disclose it to every interested buyer, use best efforts to obtain an acknowledgement from each, and give each a copy. Those duties come from case law rather than from the TRESA regulations.
Your own exposure sits in three places. You created a warranty your seller may not be able to stand behind. You let a buyer sign an as-is acknowledgement without a quote. Or you repeated the claims-fund story. The first two are drafting failures. The third is the one that is entirely avoidable and entirely yours.
Warranties that survive closing are a recurring theme in this series, and the reasoning in the UFFI warranty post applies here almost line for line: a survival clause means the promise walks out the door with the seller.
How I want this handled
- Establish the age of the building and, in a condo, whether the corporation has ever addressed plumbing. Do not guess from the pipe colour in a listing photograph.
- If Kitec is suspected, get a licensed plumber to confirm and to quote. Put both in the file.
- Correct the settlement misconception in writing, early, in plain words. The claims deadline passed on 9 January 2020.
- Tell the buyer to speak to their insurer during the conditional period, and record that you did.
- Choose between the warranty and the acknowledgement based on established facts, never on hope, and never insert either as filler.
- On a condominium, pair the clause with a status certificate condition long enough to be useful.
- Anything unusual goes to your Broker of Record before it goes out.
Questions agents actually ask
Can a homeowner still claim compensation for Kitec plumbing?
No. The class action settled in 2011 and the deadline to file was 9 January 2020. Claims received after that date are rejected, and the fund’s final distribution has been approved. There is no claims avenue for a homeowner who discovers Kitec today. Whether a particular owner has some other remedy against some other party is a question for their lawyer, and not something to speculate about with a client.
What is the difference between KIT-1 and KIT-2?
KIT-1 is a seller warranty that no Kitec was installed by the seller and, to the seller’s knowledge, has never been present, surviving closing. KIT-2 is a buyer acknowledgement that Kitec is present, with no seller warranty as to state of repair and an as-is acceptance. One is for a clean file, the other for a known problem. Neither is a substitute for a plumber.
Does the KIT-1 warranty cover the risers in a condominium?
Read the multi-unit limitation. Where the building is a multiple unit building, the warranty is expressed to apply only to the part of the building that is the subject of the transaction. So it speaks to the unit, not to the common elements. The building-level answer has to come from the status certificate package, the reserve fund study and any special assessment history.
Will Kitec stop my buyer from getting insurance?
It can. It is common industry practice for insurers to refuse, surcharge or limit coverage where Kitec is present, and that is an underwriting practice rather than a regulation, so it varies by insurer and over time. Because a lender will require insurance, this belongs in the conditional period. Tell the buyer in writing to confirm coverage with their own insurer before waiving anything.
How much does it cost to replace Kitec?
Replacement is commonly quoted in the five to fifteen thousand dollar range, with the figure driven by unit size, access, how much drywall has to come down and whether building risers are involved. Do not quote a number to a client yourself. Get a written estimate from a licensed plumber for the actual property and let the client negotiate from that.
Do I have to disclose Kitec if I am the listing agent?
Whether a particular Kitec installation is a latent defect rendering a property unfit or dangerous is a legal question. The framework is that latent defects of that kind must be disclosed, that a seller’s agent who knows of such a fact must tell every interested buyer, use best efforts to get an acknowledgement from each and give each a copy, and that concealing a patent defect removes caveat emptor protection. Take the specific file to your Broker of Record.
The clause checklist I make my own agents use
A one-page pre-submission check for conditions and schedules — the dates, the notice route, and the eight things that get missed. Built for Ontario agents. Free, and there is no drip campaign behind it.
Separately — if you have ever wondered what your last twelve months would have paid on a different split, run it through Quantum Leap. Six questions, no signup wall.
Still hearing the Kitec settlement story at your office?
Bad information travels faster than good information in this business, and it usually arrives in writing from an agent trying to be helpful. Every agreement my agents write gets reviewed before it leaves the office, and so does the advice attached to it. If nobody is doing that where you are, come have a conversation.
Book a 15-minute call or call or text 833-330-1925.
If the honest answer is that your current brokerage is fine, I will tell you that.
Related reading
- Financing Conditions in Ontario: The Wording, the Timeline and the Case That Should Scare You
- Rent Review Clauses on a Commercial Purchase: Who Pays and Who Controls the Application
- The SPIS in Ontario: Should Your Seller Sign One, and What the Clause Does to Your Buyer
- Assignment Clauses in Ontario: What the Right to Assign Actually Gives Your Buyer
- Documentation Review Conditions: The Catch-All Clause and Its Limits
- Every clause and condition guide in one place
- OREA, Guidelines for Residential and Commercial Clauses, revised 19 May 2026 (OREA member resource)
- Kitec class action settlement, 2011, and the 9 January 2020 claims deadline
- RECO Information Bulletin 7.4, Facts a seller has a legal obligation to disclose
- RECO Information Bulletin 5.1, Advertising, 17 January 2024
- Coppendale v. Mills, 2025 ONSC 5192
Jatin Dua is Broker of Record and co-founder of RE/MAX Quantum Realty, Brokerage, Unit 101, 799 The Queensway, Etobicoke. Four-plus years in the GTA and more than $100M in sales volume. He reviews the agreements his agents write.
This is professional commentary from a Broker of Record on drafting practice around Kitec warranties and acknowledgements in Ontario agreements of purchase and sale. It is not legal advice. Whether a particular installation is a latent defect, and what remedies any owner may have, are questions for the client’s lawyer. This is general professional commentary from a Broker of Record on drafting practice. It is not legal advice, it is not a substitute for your own brokerage’s policies, and it does not create any professional relationship. Clause codes refer to OREA’s Guidelines for Residential and Commercial Clauses, an OREA member resource — the clause wording itself is OREA’s and is not reproduced here. Always work from your brokerage’s approved forms, and send your client to a lawyer for anything turning on interpretation, enforceability or remedy. Legislation, regulator guidance and case law all change; verify anything you are relying on.