In June 2014, a fire broke out at the mobile home of Christine McKnight (the “Insured”). Her insurer, Promutuel Assurance Boréale (the “Insurer”), denied her claim and refused to compensate her, stating that it believed the Insured had intentionally caused the fire herself.

The trial judge partially granted the Insured’s claim against the Insurer, deeming that the Insurer had not discharged its burden of proof. After examining the evidence that was presented, the judge ruled that there was no direct evidence or presumptions of a serious, precise, and concordant nature showing that the fire had been caused intentionally. In particular, the judge did not give probative value to the testimony of one of the Insurer’s primary witnesses, who would have made it possible to rule that the Insured was indeed present at her home when the fire started. Rather, the judge drew a negative conclusion in the absence of the first two witnesses of the fire, who were not present during the trial, since their versions of the facts, as reported, contradict two of the Insurer’s witnesses.

Read more (en français)