Joseph Villeneuve

The insurer appealed an application judge's decision declaring it had a duty to defend the insureds (a mother and her son) in two actions arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The son, a G2 driver, had a blood alcohol concentration greater than zero at the time of the accident, prima facie contravening s. 6(1) of O. Reg. 340/94.

The insurer denied coverage based on a statutory condition prohibiting operation by an unauthorized driver.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that s. 6(1) is a strict liability offence, that the son had a reasonable belief his blood alcohol was zero after sleeping for several hours, and that the mother did not know or ought to have known her son was unauthorized to drive when she permitted him to use her vehicle.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether the Consumer Protection Act applied to a handwritten estimate for a construction contract, and whether the contract was exempt from the Act as part of a real estate transaction.

The matter was remitted for trial.