The plaintiff moved for summary judgment after the insurer declared her automobile insurance policy void ab initio based on an alleged misrepresentation that no other licensed drivers lived in her household.
The insurer relied on s. 233 of the Insurance Act and asserted that the plaintiff’s former partner was living with her when the application was made.
The court found the insurer failed to meet its evidentiary burden to establish a knowing misrepresentation and had not put its best foot forward on the motion.
The defendant’s evidence was largely indirect, hearsay, or overstated, while the plaintiff’s evidence was unchallenged.
Summary judgment was granted declaring the policy valid and requiring the insurer to honour its obligations.
