Case Overview:
The case centered on the denial of an insurance claim following a fire that destroyed Busato's home.

Background:
Busato held a valid homeowner’s insurance policy with Gore Mutual. After a 2017 accidental kitchen fire destroyed his home, Gore denied coverage, citing a policy exclusion relating to marijuana cultivation. Although Busato legally cultivated approximately 25 marijuana plants under a Health Canada license, Gore argued that the exclusion applied regardless of legality.

Legal Issues and Arguments:
Busato challenged the denial on two grounds:

1. The exclusion clause was ambiguous and should be interpreted in his favor.
2. The exclusion was unjust or unreasonable under section 32 of the Insurance Act.

The insurer maintained the exclusion was unambiguous and valid, arguing that legality was irrelevant.

Court's Analysis and Decision:
The Court of Appeal found the exclusion clause ambiguous due to unclear legislative references and drafting errors. Applying the principle of contra proferentem, the ambiguity was resolved in favor of Busato. The Court also determined that applying the exclusion in this context was unjust and unreasonable, warranting relief under section 32 of the Insurance Act.

Outcome and Costs:
The appeal was allowed, reinstating Busato's insurance coverage claim. The document did not specify the total amount of costs or award granted to Busato.