Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the trial judge erred in interpreting the "property of like kind and quality" provision by requiring full siding replacement despite an available but sun-bleached colour mismatch.
   
• Justice Carruthers considered whether the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the extent of hail damage to all four exterior walls of the dwelling.
   
• The appeal also addressed whether the damages award for roof and siding replacement was properly assessed on the evidence.
   
• Contested was the application of the policy's "Parts" provision, which the appellant argued limited its obligation to only the damaged siding sections.
   
• Principles from Emond v Trillium Mutual Insurance Co, 2026 SCC 3, including contra proferentem, framed the court's approach to interpreting the standard form policy.
   
• Costs of $1,350 were awarded to the self-represented respondent in connection with supplemental appeal briefing.
   

Facts of the case

Kyle Tansey's home on Riverglen Drive SE, Calgary, was damaged by a hailstorm on July 15, 2023. The property was insured under Allstate's VIP Homeowner Policy. Allstate's appraiser and adjuster concluded that only the north and west exterior walls showed hail damage, while Tansey maintained that all four walls had been affected. Tansey obtained his own estimates, including one from RidgeCrest Developments, covering repairs to the roof, siding on all four walls, and damaged soft metals on the fascia, eavestroughs, and downspouts. Allstate's contractor completed a colour match of the siding by exposing portions that had not been bleached by the sun, but Allstate maintained it was only obligated to replace siding on two sides of the home. At trial, Allstate did not call its original appraiser or adjuster as witnesses, and the trial judge found that Tansey's evidence of damage to all sides of the home had not been refuted. The trial judge (Justice L.L. Burt, Court of Justice) found that an inexact colour match did not satisfy the "property of like kind and quality" requirement, relying on Acciona Infrastructure Canada Inc v Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company, 2015 BCCA 347, and awarded the respondent damages. Allstate appealed several of the trial judge's declarations to the Court of King's Bench.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Section 53 of the Court of Justice Act governs appeals of this kind, providing that the Court of King's Bench must hear and determine the appeal, give judgment, and make a costs order, and that its decision is final. The relevant policy provisions included Coverage A (Dwelling Building), which insures the dwelling and attached structures; the Insured Perils clause, insuring against "all risks of direct physical loss or damage" subject to exclusions; and the "Our Options" provision, giving the insurer the option to "repair, rebuild or replace the damaged or destroyed property with property of like kind and quality within a reasonable time." The policy also included an Additional Conditions "Parts" provision, stating that where property is made up of several parts, the insurer is not liable for more than the cost to repair or replace the damaged part, and identical wording appeared in the personal property coverage (Coverage C). A loss mitigation provision allowed for an additional $2,500 to upgrade the roof or siding to hail- and wind-resistant material where the loss exceeded the deductible.

Reasoning and analysis

The applicable standard of review was correctness for questions of law and palpable and overriding error for findings of fact or mixed fact and law, per Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33. Policy interpretation is reviewed on a correctness standard, per Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SC 37, and Emond v Trillium Mutual Insurance Co, 2026 SCC 3. Justice Carruthers applied the interpretive framework from Emond, including reading the contract as a whole, resolving genuine ambiguity through reasonable expectations of the parties, and applying contra proferentem against the insurer as drafter where ambiguity persists. On the evidentiary issue, the court found no reviewable error, noting the trial judge was entitled to prefer Tansey's evidence given that Allstate's original appraiser and adjuster did not testify and its expert had not inspected the property. On damages, the court found no reviewable error in accepting the more recent, higher roof invoice over the 2023 estimate, or in relying on the RidgeCrest estimate covering all four walls and soft metals over Allstate's lower estimate for two walls only. On the coverage issue, the court reviewed case law addressing colour mismatch in replacement materials, including Easton v Lanark Mutual Insurance Co, 2000 CarswellOnt 2227; Blanchet v HB Gestion d'assurance groupe Ltée, 2004 CanLII 29871 (QC CQ); Meany v Insurance Corp of Newfoundland Ltd, [2004] NJ No 96; Whelan v Beothic General Insurance Co, [1992] NJ No 336; and Carter v Intact Insurance Co, 2016 ONCA 917. The court concluded that where a significant and non-temporary colour discrepancy exists between old and new siding, full replacement is generally required to restore the insured to their pre-loss position, consistent with the indemnity principle. The court agreed with the trial judge's outcome, though not entirely with her reasoning, and rejected Allstate's argument that the "Parts" provision limited its obligation, finding that provision was directed at personal property coverage rather than the dwelling.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Carruthers dismissed Allstate's appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that all four exterior walls had sustained hail damage and that Allstate was required to replace siding on all four walls, together with the associated soft metals, to satisfy the "property of like kind and quality" requirement in the policy. The court also upheld the damages assessment, including reliance on the RidgeCrest estimate and the more recent roof repair invoice. Kyle Tansey was the successful party. The decision states the trial court awarded $52,510.27 in damages, plus interest and costs (para 10); a separate breakdown of the award totals $52,658.07 (para 17); and the certificate of judgment is stated to confirm a net judgment of $57,510.27 (para 18). [Source inconsistency: the judgment states three different total figures — $52,510.27, $52,658.07, and $57,510.27 — without reconciling the discrepancy.] In addition, Justice Carruthers awarded Tansey costs of $1,350 in respect of the supplemental appeal briefing.