Green Rise Foods Inc. v. N.V. Hagelunie

Green Rise Foods Inc. v. N.V. Hagelunie

The motion judge erred in principle by treating the immediate emission of carbon monoxide as the sole effective cause without determining, using chain or concurrent-cause analysis, whether the boiler and monitor malfunctions (and their causes) were the effective cause(s); the motion judge also failed to address who bore the onus for the machinery breakdown exception and failed to make necessary factual findings, such that summary judgment was inappropriate; appeal allowed and action remitted for trial.

Citation
2026 ONCA 334
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant (appellant): Green Rise Foods Inc.; Defendant/respondent (respondent): N.V. Hagelunie
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment (motion Judge Granted Boomerang Summary Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; motion judge's decision and costs order set aside; action remitted for trial; respondent ordered to pay appellant appeal costs of $70,000; question of costs below reserved to trial judge.
Legal Topics
Coverage, Causation, Policy Interpretation, Exclusions, Summary Judgment, Onus of Proof, Remittal to Trial, Standard Form Policy
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Coverage Causation Policy Interpretation Exclusions Summary Judgment +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Green Rise Foods Inc.

Plaintiff/applicant (appellant)

N.V. Hagelunie

Defendant/respondent (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment (motion Judge Granted Boomerang Summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge correctly determined the effective cause(s) of loss in a series of events context
  2. 2 Who bore the onus to prove the machinery breakdown exception in the initial grant of coverage
  3. 3 Whether the exhaust gas, pollution or machinery breakdown exclusions applied to bar coverage

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge erred in principle by treating the immediate emission of carbon monoxide as the sole effective cause without determining, using chain or concurrent-cause analysis, whether the boiler and monitor malfunctions (and their causes) were the effective cause(s); the motion judge also failed to address who bore the onus for the machinery breakdown exception and failed to make necessary factual findings, such that summary judgment was inappropriate; appeal allowed and action remitted for trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; motion judge's decision and costs order set aside; action remitted for trial; respondent ordered to pay appellant appeal costs of $70,000; question of costs below reserved to trial judge.

Orders

  • Set aside the motion judge's dismissal and boomerang summary judgment
  • Remit entire action for trial