At this point, I will make two observations that become
relevant later in my analysis. First, the definition of “flood” in
clause 20(j) of the insurance policy is identical to the definition of
“flood” in clause 6 of the flood endorsement.
 Second, the exclusion in clause 6B(c)( i) of the insurance
policy differs from the exclusion in clause 3(b) of the flood
endorsement in that the former applies to any water “derived
from natural sources” that seeps through the foundation, while
the latter refers only to “water below the surface of the ground”
that seeps through the foundation.
 On June 30, 2014, significant rainfall occurred in the Haliburton area. The rainfall resulted in large pools of water collecting outside of the northwest wall of the premises. Water entered
the building and covered an extensive area of the interior floor
which caused Parker to sustain $45,000 in damages to the flooring, walls, printed products and equipment at the premises. The
loss was reported to Gore on July 1, 2014.
 The building is a single-storey building without a basement. It was constructed in at least three phases, so there are two
additions to the original building. The building is on a concrete
block foundation. A portion of the foundation is above ground.
 The only factual dispute in this case relates to where the
water entered the building and, more specifically, whether it
entered the building above or below “the surface of the ground”.
 Gore denied the claim, taking the position that a gap in
the waterproof wrapping where two walls met at an inside corner allowed for water to enter the building below the grade level
through the foundation. It concluded that the water did not rise
above the concrete block foundation wall. Accordingly, Gore
takes the position that the loss fell within the exclusion in clause
3(b) of the flood endorsement. It also argues that the flood was
not the result of an overflow of a body of water, and therefore did
not meet the definition of flood in the flood endorsement.
 Parker takes the position that the flood resulted from an
overflow of a body of water, and the water entered above-grade,
and was therefore covered by the flood extension.
Analysis — Motions for Summary Judgment
 Rule 20.04(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
20.04(2) The court shall grant summary judgment if
(a) the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a
trial with respect to a claim or defence[.]