Is a property insured for fire protection only if it is not contained in a particular building?

In Arnold v. British Colonial Fire Ins. Co. (1917), 45 N.B.R. 285 at p. 305, Grimmer J., after noting that the subject property in that case was covered for fire only while contained in a particular building, went on to say: This I think was clearly of the essence of the contract, and any change in the risk without the consent of the insurer, and without the notice in writing required by the statute relieved him of liability, as it cannot well be held that property insured in one place under one set of existing local conditions, is still insured if removed to another building on another street, under another set of existing local conditions, and without the knowledge or consent of the insurer. And see White J. at p. 307.