Simon's Legal Resources

Statutory Interpretation - "Guaranteed"

. 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.

The court considers the meaning of 'guaranteed', here in an insurance endorsement:

[81] First, the Emonds argue that the use of the word “guaranteed” in the heading of the endorsement is “intended to convey a promise that the insurer was guaranteeing to the insured that it would pay the full rebuilding cost of the home” (A.F., at para. 62). The Emonds argue that, when they purchased the policy, they believed that they purchased insurance from Trillium that guaranteed full rebuilding costs (para. 64). They argue that this is how the language would be understood by an average person applying for insurance (paras. 63-65).

[82] I disagree. This argument would have us read the word “guaranteed” in isolation, rather than in light of the contract as a whole, as required. The heading of an endorsement cannot overwhelm otherwise unambiguous language. In this context, the term “guaranteed” clearly refers to the absence of a limit on the amount payable by the insurer, subject to the conditions in the insurance contract. Indeed, the Emonds concede that at least some exclusions from elsewhere in the policy continue to apply despite the GRC endorsement, such as exclusions related to war and terrorism (transcript, at pp. 11-12). This underlines that the word “guaranteed” does not mean that Trillium was “guaranteeing the rebuild” no matter what (A.F., at para. 64). Even on the Emonds’ own interpretation, this is not true.