Robert E. Seabrook

The minor plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger in a stolen car.

He claimed damages against his mother's automobile insurer under the uninsured motorist provisions of the Ontario Standard Automobile Policy (OAP 1).

The insurer moved to determine whether paragraph 1.8.2 of OAP 1 excluded the claim.

The motion judge found the claim was not excluded.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the second clause of paragraph 1.8.2 refers to an occupant of 'an automobile' rather than 'the automobile' as defined in the policy, thereby excluding coverage for an occupant of any automobile driven without consent.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in an uninsured vehicle.

He sought indemnity from the respondent insurer under a policy issued to a man with whom he lived in a de facto parent-child relationship.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the appellant was neither a 'person insured under the contract' under s. 265 of the Insurance Act nor a 'relative' under the OPCF 44 endorsement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the definition of 'insured' in s. 224(1) applies to s. 265, and that 'relative' in the endorsement should be interpreted liberally to include a de facto parent-child relationship, provided dependency is proven at trial.