An insured who operates a vehicle contrary to her driver's licence requirements may still be entitled to coverage under her motor vehicle insurance policy.
Appeal by Wawanesa from a declaration that it was obliged to defend and indemnify an automobile policy holder who had an accident while in contravention of her G1 licence which required that she be accompanied by a fully licensed driver at all times when driving.
Becamon v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. 2009 ONCA 113 ONCA. February 6, 2009, Ontario Court of Appeal. MacPherson, Laskin, Armstrong J.J.A.
Becamon was insured with Wawanesa and possessed a G1 driver’s licence which required her to be accompanied by a fully licensed driver at all times when driving her vehicle. Becamon struck the Plaintiff with her car in a strip mall where the Plaintiff was walking. At the time, Becamon was alone in the vehicle and therefore in contravention of her licence. She was charged under the Highway Traffic Act (“HTA”) for contravention of conditions on her licence (for failing to wear her glasses) and for driving without being accompanied by a qualified driver. She subsequently pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $105 for each offence.
Wawanesa refused to indemnify Becamon on the basis that she had violated a statutory condition in the policy by driving when she was not “authorized by law” to do so. Wawanesa took the position that the limit of its policy coverage was $200,000, rather than the $1,000,000 of coverage that would have been applicable if Becamon had not been driving alone. Becamon brought a third party notice against Wawanesa and sought a declaration that Wawanesa had a duty to indemnify her with respect to the Plaintiff’s action for damages. The trial judge granted Becamon’s declaration.
On appeal, the Court considered whether Becamon’s guilty pleas to the offences precluded her from arguing that she was driving lawfully in the civil action, and whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the accident did not take place on a highway as defined by the HTA.
The Court reviewed two decisions regarding the presumption of guilt in a civil proceeding following a conviction in a criminal proceeding: Re Del Core and Ontario College of Pharmacists (1985), 51 O.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.) and Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77. The Court also considered the vastly different consequences of Becamon's guilty pleas in the criminal and civil proceedings, and held that fairness dictated that the result in the criminal case should not be binding in the civil case. It was noted that the trial judge was correct to consider Becamon's lack of counsel and her difficulties with the English language in coming to that result. The Court also held that the parking lot was private property, not a public highway, and therefore the HTA did not apply.
This case was originally summarized by Kim Yee and originally edited by David Pilley.
