Dennis Merkley

The accused was charged with arson with disregard for human life and arson for a fraudulent purpose following an explosion and fire that destroyed a restaurant.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an unsavoury witness who claimed the accused confessed to setting the fire, as well as expert evidence regarding the fire's origin.

The court applied a Vetrovec warning to the witness's testimony and found it unreliable without sufficient corroboration.

The expert evidence was deemed equivocal.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused the fire, resulting in acquittals on both counts.

The respondent's home was destroyed by fire, and she claimed against her insurer, the appellant, for the loss of the home, contents, jewelry, and a large fine art collection.

The insurer denied coverage, alleging arson and material misrepresentation in both the application and the proof of loss.

The trial judge rejected the insurer's defences and awarded over $4.5 million in damages plus punitive damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on the application misrepresentation and the application of s. 124 of the Insurance Act to the insurance binder.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial restricted to the proof of loss, finding that the trial judge committed reversible error by failing to explain how he resolved significant credibility issues regarding the respondent's evidence of her fine art losses.

The appellant insurance company denied the respondents' claims for fire loss, alleging arson.

A jury found in favour of the respondents, awarding compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages, and finding the insurer acted in bad faith.

The insurer appealed on multiple grounds, including the admissibility of settlement offers, character evidence, and the availability of punitive damages to an estate under the Trustee Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability and punitive damages, holding that the Trustee Act permits an estate to recover punitive damages.

However, the Court reduced the aggravated damages award from $175,000 to $50,000, finding the original amount grossly excessive.

The insurer appealed a jury verdict awarding the insureds compensatory and punitive damages following a fire that destroyed a commercial building.

The insurer had denied the claims based on arson, misrepresentation, and fraud.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the law of misrepresentation and the interpretation of a 'shut down' exclusion clause.

The Court also set aside the jury's $1.2 million award for loss of profits as unsupported by evidence, and found the $2.5 million punitive damages award to be grossly excessive.