Law360 Canada ( May 29, 2025, 11:49 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from the dismissal of his action for damages against respondent insurance company (“insurer”). He argued that the summary trial judge erred by concluding the exclusion clause was unambiguous and alternatively, by failing to grant relief from forfeiture under the Insurance Act. The appellant’s home was destroyed by fire. He had purchased an insurance policy from the insurer. The appellant made a claim with insurer for indemnity under the policy. During its investigation of the fire, the insurer learned the appellant was growing approximately 25 marijuana plants, pursuant to a valid licence issued by Health Canada that permitted him to cultivate and possess up to 73 marijuana plants and use medicinal marijuana. The appellant had five surgeries that caused him chronic and debilitating pain. Health Canada issued him a possession and cultivation licence for marijuana. The fire was caused by an insured risk and not the appellant’s marijuana cultivation. The insurer denied coverage for the loss. It relied on an exclusion in the policy relating to marijuana cultivation on the property. The appellant sued on the policy. The case proceeded by way of summary trial. The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s action against the insurer....