|
Statutory Interpretation - "Technique". Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance Co.
In Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance Co. (SCC, 2026) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal, here brought against an order in the Ontario Court of Appeal that "ordered that the cost of replacement payable under the insurance contract does not include the compliance costs" with building requirements imposed by the local conservation authority.
Here the court considers the meaning of 'technique', in an insurance endorsement:[83] Second, the Emonds argue that the GRC endorsement confers an additional benefit: that the rebuilding would be completed with “materials of similar quality using current building techniques” (A.F., at para. 69 (emphasis added); Residential Insurance Policy, at p. 4-1). The base policy’s Basis of Claim Payment provision calculates cost based on rebuilding “with materials of similar quality”, but does not refer to “current building techniques”. The Emonds argue that “these words would be read by an average person to mean that any rebuilding of the home would meet current building standards” (para. 70).
[84] I disagree. The ordinary meaning of the word “technique” is simply a way of carrying out a particular task, especially one that requires skill (Oxford English Dictionary (online), sub verbo “technique”; Cambridge Dictionary (online), sub verbo “technique”). A technique is not equivalent to a legal requirement: not all current techniques are necessarily legally required and not all legal requirements will relate to techniques by which a particular rebuilding task is carried out. For example, a legal requirement to upgrade the septic system on the Emonds’ property is not a commonly used construction method or technique within any ordinary reading of those words. Rather, it is a requirement to conduct additional work as a pre-requisite to rebuild (see A.R., vol. II, at p. 6), even though the septic system itself was not damaged in the flood (see application judge’s reasons, at para. 37).
[85] Consistent with this understanding, “current building techniques” refers to “construction methods that are commonly used today rather than those used in the original construction of the home” (C.A. reasons, at para. 84). For example, roof shingles on older homes were installed by hand nailing, but air nailing may have replaced the method of hand nailing in modern home construction.
[86] Rather than increase the coverage limit, the phrase “current building techniques” may actually serve to limit the insurer’s liability for loss settlement under the GRC endorsement. As Trillium’s adjuster explains, current building techniques can be more cost-effective than the techniques used at the time of construction (A.R., vol. II, at p. 10). This language thus serves a clear function within the logic of the policy booklet as a whole. Since, in contrast to the base policy, there is no cap on the recovery for replacement costs under the GRC endorsement, calculating the cost of rebuilding using less efficient historical techniques could greatly increase the insurer’s liability. The language of “current building techniques” in the endorsement excludes this possibility. It is therefore unambiguous that the requirements set by the conservation authority are not “current building techniques” referenced in the endorsement.
|
