Insured precluded from claiming benefits for driving with expired licence; passive ignorance is not due diligence.
The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision allowing the insured to claim income replacement and housekeeping benefits despite driving with an expired driver's licence at the time of the accident.
The arbitrator had applied the due diligence defence, finding the insured reasonably believed his licence was valid because he had not received a renewal notice.
On appeal, the Director's Delegate applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Lévis (City) v. Tétreault, holding that passive ignorance and reliance on administrative practices like renewal notices do not constitute due diligence.
The appeal was allowed, and the insured was precluded from claiming the benefits.
Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada v. Eustachio (Steve) Giordano, 2007 ONFSCDRS 202