The appellants purchased a home and acquired a title insurance policy from the respondent.
Years later, they discovered a previous owner had removed load-bearing walls without a building permit, resulting in a municipal order to remedy an unsafe building.
The respondent denied coverage under the title policy.
The motion judge dismissed the appellants' summary judgment motion, finding the title remained marketable and that municipal work orders must be registered on title to trigger coverage.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the standard of review for standard form insurance contracts is correctness.
The Court found the motion judge erred in his interpretation of the policy and the nature of off-title defects, concluding that the unpermitted construction rendered the title unmarketable and was covered under the policy.
