- SECTIONS
- Business
- Pulse
- Access to Justice
- Labour & Employment
- Wills, Trusts & Estates
- Family
- Criminal
- Civil Litigation
- Personal Injury
- In-House Counsel
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Immigration
- Natural Resources
- Real Estate
- Tax
- ABOUT Law360 CANADA
- About us
- Explore Law360 Canada
- Contact us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms & Conditions
- Subscribe
- My Account
Sections
Your firm must have an account to access this feature
Elaborating on how to interpret insurance contracts, SCC has 7-2 rejected a couple’s bid to require their home insurer to pay for all increased zoning & other legal compliance costs to replace their flood-destroyed house: Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance Co., 2026 SCC 3. MORE TO COME.