Tesla Canada told to pay C$161,700 for Model X fire after data-free vandalism defense

Insurer Intact paid out on a 2020 Tesla Model X that burned in Montreal — reportedly still within Tesla's basic four-year/80,000 km warranty — then sought to recover the money from Tesla Canada. A court-filed expert report traced the fire's origin to the passenger-side dashboard, describing a premature electrical failure as the probable cause; Montreal police had concluded in 2023 that the incident was not criminal in nature.

Tesla never got to a merits fight: after it failed to properly contest the claim within the required window, a Quebec court entered a default judgment for Intact in June 2026. Tesla then asked the court to set that aside so it could present its defense — that vehicle fires are "generally" the product of misuse or vandalism. Justice Ian Demers denied the request, writing that Tesla had failed to raise "the slightest serious" defense and that the vandalism-or-misuse theory was asserted "without relying on any data whatsoever."

The ruling, reported by Electrek on October 12–13, 2026, leaves Tesla Canada owing C$161,700 — the payout Intact sought to recover, widely rounded to $162,000 in coverage. Whether the total includes interest or legal costs beyond the base payout was not confirmed in available reporting, and Tesla gave no public statement on the ruling.

C$161,700 ordered paid to Intact — the insurer's payout on the destroyed vehicle — after a default judgment was upheld

Tesla let the contest deadline pass, handing the insurer a default judgment before any expert evidence was tested.

Its attempt to reopen the case rested on a general claim about how fires happen — no inspection data on the actual car.

Two independent conclusions undercut the vandalism theory: the police's 2023 not-criminal finding and the expert report's dashboard origin.

The fire sat inside the basic warranty window on a dashboard component — precisely the loss the warranty program exists to absorb, making the fight look like stonewalling.

A misuse defense is a claim that needs data. Arriving with a general assertion instead of an inspection loses the motion — and turns a warranty argument into a published rebuke.

With the default judgment upheld, Tesla Canada's C$161,700 obligation stands absent a further appeal, which available reporting does not confirm Tesla intends to pursue. The company issued no public statement responding to Justice Demers' ruling. The case adds to Tesla's hardware-reliability scrutiny at a moment when recalls have already been frequent — though this one is a dashboard-electronics failure, not a battery fire.