Canada: Kozel v The Personal Insurance Co.: The Latest Word On Relief From Forfeiture

On February 19, 2014, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Kozel v The Personal Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 130. The case will be of interest to auto insurers and representatives presented with "authorized by law to drive" issues. Its significance, however, is broader. The appellate court's holdings with respect to relief from forfeiture and section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C43 (the "CJA") have widespread implications within the insurance realm more generally. Liability insurers, property insurers, whether commercial or residential, insurance law counsel, adjusters, brokers, etc. take note.

The Facts

The underlying action arose out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on February 16, 2012, in Florida. At the material time, the insured was driving with an expired licence. She received mail from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation two months prior to expiry of her driver's licence and licence plate stickers. She did not open it at the time. One month prior to expiry, she provided the envelope, believing it to pertain to licence plate renewal, to a dealership in order that it could licence a new car. She opened the envelope, but did not know whether it also pertained to driver's licence renewal. Her driver's licence expired on October 7, 2011. The insured renewed her licence without difficulty three days after the accident. Subsequently, the motorcyclist involved in the accident brought a personal injury action against the insured in Florida.

The insurer denied coverage under its motor vehicle liability insurance policy on the basis that the insured was not authorized to drive at the time of the accident, contrary to statutory condition 4(1) of Statutory Conditions – Automobile Insurance, O Reg 777/93, enacted under the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I8 (the "IA"). The statutory condition, forming part of the policy, provides: "[t]he 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."

Justice T.M. Wood of the Superior Court of Justice heard the coverage application. He disagreed. Defence and indemnity were found to be owed under the auto policy with respect to the underlying action. This was on the basis that there was no breach of the statutory condition. Driving without a valid licence is a strict liability offence. The defence of due diligence is, therefore, available. Such defence was applicable on the facts.

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It also found a duty to defend and a duty to indemnify on the insurer's part. The basis for this finding, however, differed. It agreed that there was a breach of statutory condition 4(1), but found that a due diligence defence was not made out on the facts. The Court of Appeal went on to grant the insured relief from forfeiture under the CJA.

Due Diligence Defence

The due diligence defence was rejected at the appellate level. While there was evidence of the exercise of reasonable care in relation to renewal of her licence plate, the evidence did not demonstrate that the insured took all reasonable steps to avoid expiry of her driver's licence or that she reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would have rendered her failure to renew her driver's licence innocent. The relevant misapprehension of facts and care were those with respect to the offence with which she was charged. Despite having held a driver's licence for 60 years and having previously renewed it on time, there was no evidence that the insured did anything to inquire about or even consider her driver's licence renewal on this occasion.

Relief From Forfeiture

The Court of Appeal agreed that section 129 of the IA had no application. Section 129 provides:

Where there has been imperfect compliance with a statutory condition as to the proof of loss to be given by the insured or other matter or thing required to be done or omitted by the insured with respect to the loss and a consequent forfeiture or avoidance of the insurance in whole or in part and the court considers it inequitable that the insurance should be forfeited or avoided on that ground, the court may relieve against the forfeiture or avoidance on such terms as it considers just.

The court's discretion to grant relief from forfeiture thereunder is limited. The provision pertains only to breach of insurance policy conditions, whether statutory or contractual, relating to proof of loss.

The language under section 98 of the CJA is broader. Under section 98, "[a] court may grant relief against penalties and forfeitures, on such terms as to compensation or otherwise as are considered just."

In granting relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the CJA for breach of the "authorized by law to drive" statutory condition, the Court of Appeal made two significant threshold determinations. First, the court found that the insured's breach of statutory condition 4(1) constituted imperfect compliance with a policy term as opposed to non-compliance with a condition precedent to coverage. Second, the court held, as a question of law, that section 98 of the CJA applies to contracts regulated by the IA.

The Court of Appeal identified the imperfect compliance/non-compliance analysis undertaken in the context of relief from forfeiture as distinct from that undertaken in contracts jurisprudence on conditions precedent. The focus in the relief from forfeiture context is on "whether the breach of the term is serious or substantial." This appears to be informed by the significance of the term, i.e., where incidental, breach is deemed to be imperfect compliance and, where fundamental or integral, breach is non-compliance with a condition precedent. It appears also that prejudice to the insurer is relevant.

In the case before it, the court found that the insured's breach of statutory condition 4(1) did not constitute non-compliance with a condition precedent. It was said to be a "relatively minor breach" rather than a "fundamental one." The provision was a "condition in name." However, there was no language in the policy "stressing that the insurance coverage was conditioned on the claimant being authorized to drive." This was unlike in Stuart v Hutchins (1998), 40 OR (3d) 321 (CA) where failure to provide notice within the policy period under a claims-made and reported errors and omissions policy was held to be non-compliance with a condition precedent. Stuart was distinguished on the basis of plain language within the policy at issue which identified such notice as a condition precedent. Finally, the breach caused no prejudice to the insurer. The breach was, therefore, deemed imperfect compliance.

Directing a narrow application of Stuart in future, Justice LaForme wrote:

A court should find that an insured's breach constitutes noncompliance with a condition precedent only in rare cases where the breach is substantial and prejudices the insurer. In all other instances, the breach will be deemed imperfect compliance, and relief against forfeiture will be available.

In holding that relief under section 98 of the CJA is available in insurance cases, the court accepted that the IA does not occupy the field of equitable relief nor completely codify the law of insurance. As well, section 129 of the IA is restricted to breaches occurring after a loss (pertaining to breach of condition as to the proof of loss), leaving individuals whose relatively minor breaches occur before the loss without a remedy. Absent a clear intent by the Legislature that section 129 operate to the exclusion of section 98, the court held the latter applies to contracts governed by the IA.

Finally, the Court of Appeal went on to consider entitlement of the insured to relief against forfeiture based on three factors: (1) the conduct of the insured; (2) the gravity of the breach; and (3) the disparity between the value of the property forfeited and the damage caused by the breach. On the facts, the court found the insured established that her conduct was reasonable with respect to all facets of the contractual relationship. She paid her premiums in a timely manner and acted in good faith. Her driver's licence was valid up to her 77th birthday. As soon as she discovered its expiry, she renewed it without difficulty. The plaintiff also established that the breach was not grave. The fact that the insured was driving with an expired licence did not impact on her ability to drive safely nor did it impact on the contractual rights of the insurer. Finally, the disparity between the value of the property forfeited and the damage caused by the breach was "enormous." The value of the coverage potentially lost to the insured was $1,000,000 whereas the insurer suffered no prejudice as a result of the breach.


A number of the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision in Kozel are immediately evident. Others are less obvious and uncertain.

Relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the CJA is now definitively available in insurance cases. It follows that coverage is not necessarily foreclosed in the event of imperfect compliance with a policy provision in respect of which relief from forfeiture is not available under section 129 of the IA. Given the broader application of the former, at a minimum, the number of requests for relief from forfeiture can be expected to increase.

What about the situation in which relief from forfeiture is available under the IA, but there is no entitlement on the facts? Can the insured seek remedial relief under the CJA? Put another way: is relief available under section 98 in circumstances of imperfect compliance with a policy condition as to proof of loss, i.e. breach of the notice condition under an occurrence based policy? There is overlap in the three part test adopted by the Court of Appeal for application of section 98 and the two part test generally adopted with respect to a grant of relief from forfeiture under section 129 ((1) the conduct of the insured; and (2) whether the insurer has been prejudiced). But, it is conceivable that an insured could fail under section 129, yet succeed under the broader provision in the CJA. Would recourse to section 98 be prevented on the basis that a provision in a special Act prevails over an incompatible provision in a general Act (generalia specialibus non derogant)?

The application of Stuart v Hutchins has been expressly restricted. Previously, Stuart was widely relied upon for the proposition that breach of a notice condition under a claims-made and reported policy constitutes non-compliance with a condition precedent for which relief from forfeiture is not available (whether under the IA or the CJA). It remains the case that there can be no relief from forfeiture in the event of non-compliance with a condition precedent. What constitutes non-compliance with a condition precedent, however, has been narrowed and is fact specific.

Did the Court of Appeal intend to restrict the application of Stuart to cases with similar policy wording, i.e. affording coverage "provided" the insured does x or requiring the insured to do x "as a condition precedent to the availability of the rights provided under this policy"? Alternatively, is notice within the policy period so integral to coverage under a claims-made and reported policy that the fundamental nature of the term and corresponding seriousness of the breach render its breach non-compliance with a condition precedent?

Breaches of statutory condition 4(1) do not necessarily constitute non-compliance with a condition precedent, so relief from forfeiture may be available. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal did not suggest that all breaches of the condition amount to imperfect compliance with a policy term. In fact, the court offered an example of a violation possibly barring the insured from relief under section 98: where an insured drank heavily prior to driving.

What about the greyer area in between the relatively minor breach of an inadvertently expired driver's licence renewed without difficulty days after an accident and the drunk driver? Previously, case law supported reduction to minimum third party liability limits where a novice driver violates the zero blood alcohol concentration condition under a G2 licence. This was on the basis of statutory condition 4(1). Could such driver now obtain relief from forfeiture under section 98 in certain circumstances, thereby accessing full policy limits?


As the latest word on relief from forfeiture out of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Kozel requires careful consideration when analyzing coverage issues arising out of breach of an insurance policy condition. No doubt, it will not be the last word. 

Original Newsletter(s) this article was published in: Insurance Observer: March 2014

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
8 Nov 2018, Conference, Toronto, Canada

This year’s program is entitled “An Analysis of Fidelity Claims for the Modern World.” The program will address important substantive and practical issues germane to today’s fidelity claims handling.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions