This court has a responsibility to protect the integrity of the justice system. This is not a “no harm, no foul” situation. No doubt,
another trial will be costly and time consuming, but it is necessary because the defence proffered the evidence of a wholly
unsuitable expert witness.
 I would grant the appeal, set aside the judgment below
and order a new trial. I would award the appellants their costs
of the appeal in the amount of $22,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and applicable taxes.
 The parties may make written submissions on the issue of
the costs of the first trial.
Parker Pad & Printing Ltd. v. Gore Mutual Insurance
Company et al.*
[Indexed as: Parker Pad & Printing Ltd. v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co.]
2017 ONSC 3894
Superior Court of Justice, Charney J. June 26, 2017
Insurance — Interpretation and construction — “Flood” — Property
insurance policy and flood endorsement defining “flood” as meaning
rising of, breaking out or overflow of any body of water — Pooling of
rainwater not falling within definition of “flood”.
The plaintiff was insured under a property insurance policy issued by the
defendant. Clause 6B(b) of the policy excluded coverage for loss or damage
caused by “flood”, which was defined as meaning the “rising of, the breaking out
or the overflow of any body of water whether natural or man-made”. Clause
6B(c)( i) excluded coverage for loss or damage caused by “seepage, leakage or
influx of water from natural sources through . . . foundations . . .”. The plaintiff
obtained additional coverage for loss or damage caused by flooding (the “flood
endorsement”). The definition of “flood” in the flood endorsement was identical to
the definition of “flood” in the policy. Following significant rainfall, pooled water
entered the plaintiff’s premises through the foundation and the premises were
flooded, causing damage to flooring, walls and equipment. The defendant denied
the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the loss did not fall within the scope of
coverage. The plaintiff sued, and brought a motion for partial summary judgment
to determine whether the loss was covered.
Held, the motion should be dismissed.
* Vous trouverez la traduction française à la p. 620, post.