The appellant insurer sought reimbursement from the respondent husband (named insured) and respondent wife (unnamed insured) for a settlement paid to third parties after the wife caused an accident while driving intoxicated.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the husband did not breach the statutory condition against permitting an intoxicated person to drive, as he had no reason to foresee her actions.
However, the Court found that the wife fell within the definition of 'insured' under the Insurance Act and was therefore liable to reimburse the insurer for breaching the statutory condition against driving while intoxicated.
