CITATION: Dutremble et al v. Heartland Farm Mutual Inc., 2026 ONSC 3230
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Joseph Adelard Serge Dutremble and Jessica Smith, Plaintiffs
-and-
Heartland Farm Mutual Inc., Defendant
BEFORE: Justice A. Doyle
COUNSEL: Ashlee Barber for the Plaintiffs
David Zuber and Meaghan McCarthy for the Defendant
HEARD: May 21, 2026 (Ottawa, by Teleconference)
REASONS FOR DECISION
DOYLE J.
Overview
1The Defendant brings a motion pursuant to s. 128 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, (Act) seeking the following:
An Order compelling the Plaintiffs to participate in the statutory appraisal process;
Appointing an appraiser on the Plaintiffs’ behalf,
Staying this proceeding pending the outcome of the appraisal; and
Ordering the Plaintiffs to deliver a sworn proof of loss.
2The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff has been fully indemnified under the policy and acted in good faith throughout the adjustment and handling of the claim. The Plaintiffs have not mitigated their loss as they did not rebuild the structure upon receipt of the funds from the Defendant. The only issues remaining are the bad faith claim and that of quantum.
3The Plaintiffs oppose the motion and submit that the matter should proceed to summary judgment, as previously directed at a triage conference before Associate Justice Kamal. In addition, the parties cannot agree on the valuation date to be applied to the appraisal.
4For the reasons that follow, the court order the Plaintiffs to deliver a sworn proof of loss within 60 days.
Background
5The Plaintiffs held a homeowner’s insurance policy covering their property in Brinston, Ontario. The policy provided coverage, including:
$671,000 for dwelling/replacement cost;
$536,800 for personal property; and
$134,200 for additional living expenses (ALE).
6On August 5, 2020, the property was damaged by fire.
7An estimate for rebuilding the property was prepared in the amount of $477,289.33, inclusive of HST.
8The Defendant issued the following payments to the Plaintiffs:
$501,438.90 for the building loss;
$54,910.92 for ALE; and
$245,123 for personal property.
9The Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that the Defendant failed to account for increased construction costs and acted in bad faith.
10They are currently living in a 900 square foot unit above the garage and unable to construct the building due to this dispute.
11The Defendant sought to initiate the appraisal process, while the Plaintiffs indicated willingness to participate only if a present-day valuation date was used. The parties were unable to agree on that issue.
12A triage conference was held on August 13, 2025, when Associate Justice Kamal directed that the matter proceed to summary judgment rather than appraisal.
13In the interim, the Plaintiffs have filed a proposed Statement of Claim dated April 29, 2026 in which the Plaintiffs seek general, aggravated and punitive damages and “damages in an amount to be determined before trial”.
14The Defendant opposes these amendments.
15The motion for the amendment was to have been heard at the same time as the hearing of the motion for summary judgment. The motions did not proceed on May 14, 2026 as scheduled due to lack of judicial resources.
Issue
16Should the Court compel the Plaintiffs to participate in the appraisal process under s. 128 of the Act ?
Analysis
17Section 128 of the Act provides a mechanism for resolving disputes relating to the quantification of losses of insured through an appraisal process. Each party appoints an appraiser, and disagreements may be resolved by an umpire. The Court retains discretion to appoint an appraiser where a party fails to do so.
18The appraisal process is intended to provide an expeditious and efficient determination of quantum. However, it is well established that it does not function as a comprehensive dispute resolution mechanism and does not address issues such as coverage, allegations of bad faith, liability or policy interpretation.
19Once written demand is made by a party, the process is mandatory.
20Each party selects a competent and impartial appraiser who acts like advocates/experts for each side.
21The appraisers independently assess the loss and attempt to reach an agreed quantum and if so, the decision is binding. If they disagree, they submit the dispute to an umpire.
22The two appraisers select the umpire and if cannot agree, the court appoints an umpire. The result is binding on quantum only.
23[Section 148](https://