In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault.
Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second destroyed it completely. Under the policy, a total loss entitled the insured to receive the replacement cost without any obligation to rebuild.
Desjardins Insurance denied coverage, alleging that the insured had intentionally caused both fires and had repeatedly made false statements during the investigation. The Court agreed.
Although no witness saw the insured set fire to the residence, the Court held that the evidence, viewed as a whole, constituted a body of serious, precise, and concordant presumptions sufficient to establish an intentional fault.
Among the key factors relied upon were:
- the presence of three separate points of origin, inconsistent with an accidental fire;
- expert evidence excluding any electrical malfunction as the cause;
- numerous false statements regarding the insured’s whereabouts, income, and financial situation; and
- a credible financial motive, given his financial difficulties and the prospect of receiving a substantial insurance payout without having to rebuild the home.
Viewed in isolation, none of these facts would necessarily have been decisive. Taken together, however, they persuaded the Court, on a balance of probabilities, that the insured had deliberately set the fires and attempted to obtain insurance proceeds to which he was not entitled.
The consequences were severe. Mr. Chatel not only forfeited his claim for more than $500,000 but was also ordered to reimburse his insurer $85,178.93 for amounts previously paid towards the mortgagee, temporary living expenses, and other disbursements, in addition to expert fees.
Takeaways
Beyond its particularly striking facts, this decision is a compelling illustration of the strength of circumstantial evidence under Quebec civil law. In insurance disputes, inconsistencies, omissions, and false statements are not assessed in isolation. Rather, they are considered as part of the overall evidentiary record, which may be sufficient to establish an intentional fault even in the absence of direct evidence or a confession.
In other words, an insurer need not prove who struck the match. It need only establish that, when the evidence is considered as a whole, the inference of intentional fault is more probable than any competing explanation.
