Alfred Morris Kwinter

This decision addresses dueling motions in a protracted fire insurance dispute.

The defendant insurer, Wawanesa, sought a Rule 32 inspection of the damaged property, while the plaintiff insureds, the Arvanitopoulos family, sought directions for the appraisal process under the Insurance Act and a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel continued Additional Living Expense (ALE) payments.

The court dismissed Wawanesa's motion as an improper reprise of a previously decided motion.

It also dismissed the Arvanitopoulos family's requests for appraisal directions, affirming the umpire's authority, and denied their mandatory injunction for ALE, citing the absence of an undertaking, a strong prima facie case, and irreparable harm.

However, as a term of dismissal, Wawanesa was ordered to continue ALE payments for May, June, and July 2022.

The defendant Allstate Insurance Company of Canada brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for property damage following a house fire.

The fire was intentionally set by the plaintiff's husband, a co-insured, who was convicted of attempted murder against the plaintiff.

Allstate relied on an exclusionary clause in the homeowners' policy for loss or damage resulting from any intentional or criminal act by an insured person.

The court, bound by Supreme Court of Canada precedent, found the exclusionary clause unambiguous and applicable, despite acknowledging its harsh and inequitable result for the innocent plaintiff.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's argument regarding mental capacity, finding the expert report unreliable and the act clearly intentional.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of Allstate, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

The court, however, exercised its discretion to dispense with costs, criticizing Allstate's corporate conduct in enforcing such an inequitable clause against a victim of domestic violence.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's decision ordering him to post security for costs in the amounts of $60,000 for CanJet Airlines and $80,000 for 1791949 Ontario Limited (TGAS).

The appeal challenged the Master's findings on impecuniosity, the sufficiency of an adverse cost protection policy, and the plaintiff's chance of success.

The court upheld the Master's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error or misapprehension of evidence, and dismissed the appeal.