The consequences of driving without car insurance can be severe and life-altering. What follows is a description of just how bad it can get if you drive without insurance.
Violation of any of the conditions of your driver’s licence may void your liability and collision insurance coverage, because under statutory condition 4 (1) of the standard Ontario auto policy (OAP1), “the insured shall not drive or operate or permit any other person to drive or operate the automobile unless the insured or other person is authorized by law to drive or operate it.” For the same reason, if the owner of a vehicle permits the driver to use the vehicle while any of the driver’s conditions are being violated, the owner risks voiding his or her insurance coverage. To avoid coverage issues, make sure you understand and follow all of the conditions applicable to your driver’s licence, as well as those of anyone you allow to drive your vehicle.
Short answer, No. Or at least that is the answer in the case of Alof v. Ikeno, 2014 ONSC 2087 (CanLII)
In this case, Matheson J. considered section section 267.6 of the Insurance Act in the context of a retroactive denial of motor vehicle insurance coverage by a plaintiff’s insurer on a summary judgment motion brought by the defendant.
Mayer v 1474479 Ontario Inc.: Judges’ Decisions on Threshold Issue Not Always Consistent With Size of Jury Awards
A fall 2013 decision of the Ontario Superior Court, Mayer v 1474479 Ontario Inc,  has confirmed that juries and judges do not always see plaintiffs in the same light.
An unnecessary bureaucracy has spawned from the 2004 decision of the Court of Appeal in D.P. v. Wagg (2004), 71 OR (3d) 229, 239 DLR (4th) 501.
D.P. v. Wagg was a civil sexual assault case. There had been a criminal sexual assault charge arising from the same incident which gave rise to the lawsuit, and the plaintiff in the civil suit wanted production of the Crown brief. The defendant in fact had possession of the Crown brief, having received it in the criminal proceedings, and the plaintiff did not.
Carriage Disputes in Subrogated Claims: Until Fully Indemnified the Insured Controls the Action – Zurich v. Ison T.H. Auto Sales, 2011 ONCA 663.
In Zurich v. Ison T.H. Auto Sales, following a large loss event, the insurer paid out $1.1 million to its insured. The insured claimed that it had an additional uninsured loss of $700,000 and commenced an action against the alleged wrongdoer, including in its action both its claim for its uninsured loss and the insurer’s subrogated claim. A dispute arose between the insured and the insurer over who should have carriage and control of the action. The insurer brought an application for carriage of the action. The application was dismissed by the application judge.
This recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal is likely to cause ripples of apprehension in municipalities across Ontario. In Guy v. Toronto (City), the Court of Appeal upheld both the Divisional Court and the Superior Court decisions finding the City of Toronto liable to Ms. Guy for damages she suffered as a result of a slip and fall on an icy road allowance.
Due Diligence Defence Available to Insured Who Breach “Not Authorized to Drive” Exclusion: Tut v RBC General Insurance Co., 2011 ONCA 644
In a decision released October 17, 2011, the Court of Appeal has endorsed a due diligence defence for the “not authorized by law to drive” exclusion contained in statutory condition 4 of the Ontario standard automobile policy O.A.P. 1. G2 drivers who drive with alcohol in their blood can avoid the exclusion and are entitled to coverage if they can show that, although their blood alcohol level was not zero, this breach of the conditions of their driver’s licence occurred despite the exercise of due diligence on their part. Similarly, if an owner of an insured vehicle permits a G2 driver whose blood alcohol level is not zero to drive the vehicle, the owner is still entitled to coverage if the owner can show that this occurred despite the exercise of due diligence.