The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle without insurance contrary to section 2(1)(a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.
The registered owner of the vehicle was a one-person corporation owned by the defendant.
The Crown argued that the defendant should be found guilty as the common law owner of the vehicle, alternatively as a party to the offence, or that the corporate veil should be pierced.
The court found that the defendant was not the common law owner of the vehicle, as there was no evidence of exclusive possession or dominion and control.
The court also found that the defendant was not a party to the offence, as there was no evidence that he was a director, officer, or agent of the corporation who had omitted to purchase insurance.
Finally, the court found no basis to pierce the corporate veil, as there was no evidence of fraudulent or improper use of the corporation to avoid compliance with the Act.
