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.