Background: Ray Kruezi owned a property that suffered fire damage on September 19, 2015. Following the incident, Kruezi sought indemnification under his comprehensive homeowners insurance policy with Aviva Insurance Company of Canada. Aviva denied the claim, citing policy exclusions for vandalism, malicious acts, and because the property was considered "vacant."

Legal Arguments/Issues:

1. Burden of Proof: The onus was initially on Kruezi to establish that the loss fell within the policy's coverage.
2. Vacancy: A key issue was whether the property was "vacant" as defined by the policy, impacting coverage eligibility.
3. Exclusions: Aviva argued the loss was excluded from coverage due to the property's vacant status and the nature of the fire (vandalism or malicious act).
4. Summary Judgment: The court considered whether the case was suitable for summary judgment without proceeding to a full trial.

Court's Decision: The court concluded that Aviva had not sufficiently proven the exclusions applied. It found the property was not vacant for 30 consecutive days prior to the fire and could not definitively attribute the fire to vandalism or a malicious act. Therefore, Aviva's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and judgment was awarded in favor of Ray Kruezi.

Costs/Award: Costs were awarded to Ray Kruezi on a party and party basis, but the total amount of costs awarded was not specified in the document.