Can the driver’s licence of a person whose licence has been suspended due to an unpaid judgment remain suspended if the driver claims bankruptcy? Two upcoming cases in the Supreme Court of Canada will decide this issue.
The consequences of driving without car insurance can be severe and life-altering. What follows is a description of just how bad it can get if you drive without insurance.
Violation of any of the conditions of your driver’s licence may void your liability and collision insurance coverage, because under statutory condition 4 (1) of the standard Ontario auto policy (OAP1), “the insured shall not drive or operate or permit any other person to drive or operate the automobile unless the insured or other person is authorized by law to drive or operate it.” For the same reason, if the owner of a vehicle permits the driver to use the vehicle while any of the driver’s conditions are being violated, the owner risks voiding his or her insurance coverage. To avoid coverage issues, make sure you understand and follow all of the conditions applicable to your driver’s licence, as well as those of anyone you allow to drive your vehicle.
Short answer, No. Or at least that is the answer in the case of Alof v. Ikeno, 2014 ONSC 2087 (CanLII)
In this case, Matheson J. considered section section 267.6 of the Insurance Act in the context of a retroactive denial of motor vehicle insurance coverage by a plaintiff’s insurer on a summary judgment motion brought by the defendant.
A fall 2013 decision of the Ontario Superior Court, Mayer v 1474479 Ontario Inc, [1] has confirmed that juries and judges do not always see plaintiffs in the same light.
An unnecessary bureaucracy has spawned from the 2004 decision of the Court of Appeal in D.P. v. Wagg (2004), 71 OR (3d) 229, 239 DLR (4th) 501.
D.P. v. Wagg was a civil sexual assault case. There had been a criminal sexual assault charge arising from the same incident which gave rise to the lawsuit, and the plaintiff in the civil suit wanted production of the Crown brief. The defendant in fact had possession of the Crown brief, having received it in the criminal proceedings, and the plaintiff did not.
Recent Comments