by Marie Hynes | Aug 29, 2014 | Blogs, Cases
The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Kozel v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 130 has expanded the availability of relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act. The court’s decision confirms that relief from forfeiture under this section is available for violations of statutory condition 4(1) of Ontario’s standard automobile insurance policy (OAP1), even where section 129 of the Insurance Act does not apply.
Kozel has altered the landscape for statutory condition 4(1) denials. The Court of Appeal held that driving with an expired licence is not non-compliance with a condition precedent in an insurance contract, but imperfect compliance. Kozel expands access to relief from forfeiture, concluding that only in rare cases will a finding of non-compliance be made. In most cases, the breach will be deemed imperfect compliance, and relief from forfeiture may be available.
by Roger Chown | Aug 29, 2014 | Articles, Blogs
Most novice and young drivers know the graduated licensing rules. Most of their parents do not. And very few people, young or old, appreciate the insurance implications that arise from violations of the graduated licensing rules, or the devastating personal consequences that can flow when coverage is not available because these rules are not followed. These results come from judicial interpretation of the graduated licensing regulations in several little-known court decisions.
by Roger Chown | Jan 5, 2012 | Blogs, Cases
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.
Recent Comments