No evidence to prove owner deliberately set 2010 Yorkton fire, so SGI must pay up, says Sask. judge

A Sask. judge has upheld a business's nine-year-long claim for SGI insurance for a fire, saying that SGI had failed to prove its case that the owner deliberately set the fire after the building had been flooded.

The owner still faces criminal charges for arson with disregard for human life and intent to defraud SGI, according to Yorkton crown prosecutors. However, the burden of proof is higher for the criminal charges than for the civil lawsuit.

Chancey Heiser bought a fitness facility in September 2009 and was renovating it, according to the Court of Queen's Bench decision.

While renovations were still going on, a rainstorm on July 1, 2010 flooded Heiser's Health and Fitness Ltd. and caused extensive damage.

Heiser made a claim for insurance. Later that month, a fire was reported at the gym. The building was quickly destroyed beyond repair and Heiser made a second claim, this time for fire damage, including the replacement cost of the building and lost income.

SGI rejected his claim, prompting Heiser's civil lawsuit. The criminal charges were laid four years after the fire, according to Heiser's lawyer.

SGI argues motive was financial distress

SGI's case presented a few different points in support of its case that Heiser set the fire deliberately. It argued Heiser had a motive, wanting to relieve himself of the "crushing burden of financial stress" and that he was present at the gym in the evening before the fire. It also pointed to witnesses testifying about his stoic and impassive expression as he watched the fire burn and introduced an expert witness who determined the fire was deliberately set.

The judge weighed and dismissed each of the points.

"While there are signs of financial strain, especially after the flood of July 1, 2010 causing the gym to shut down, I am not persuaded the company's financial plight was as bleak as SGI argues," Justice Tochor wrote.

Tochor also wrote that Heiser did not attempt to conceal his presence at the gym on the evening before the fire and that witnesses to his stoic demeanour acknowledged that people may have different responses to a traumatic event.

The expert who testified he believed the fire was deliberately set noted there was no physical evidence for this belief. Two other expert witnesses called by the plaintiff also testified, saying the fire's cause was "undetermined."

The plaintiff's claim has been allowed, but the two parties will have to set a date to establish the amount of damages that SGI will have to pay.