Gus Dal Colle

The plaintiffs sought coverage under their commercial property insurance policies for a wall collapse and a subsequent arson fire that destroyed their heritage building.

The insurer denied coverage for both claims, relying on wear and tear exclusions for the wall collapse and a vacancy exclusion for the fire.

The court dismissed the wall collapse claim, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove it was caused by a fortuitous event.

However, the court granted the fire loss claim, holding that the insurer's unilateral amendments to the policy were void under s. 124 of the Insurance Act and that the insurer was estopped from relying on the vacancy exclusion because it renewed the policy and accepted increased premiums with full knowledge that the building was vacant.

The plaintiffs were awarded over $5.8 million in damages.

A concurrent negligence claim against the plaintiffs' insurance brokers was dismissed.

The moving party, 1450638 Ontario Inc., brought a refusals motion arising from cross-examinations in an expropriation application.

Metrolinx had expropriated the moving party's property and offered $1.00 in compensation based on alleged environmental contamination, despite an initial appraisal of $2.1 million.

The court ordered Metrolinx to answer questions regarding its communications with the appraiser and to produce draft appraisal reports, finding that the dominant purpose of the appraisal was to satisfy statutory obligations under the Expropriations Act, not litigation.

The court also ordered production of Metrolinx's expropriation policies but dismissed requests for information regarding other unrelated expropriations.