Source: http://isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=333-case-law
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:12:36+00:00

Document:
• A clause should not be given effect if to do so would nullify the coverage provided by the policy.
See e.g. Amos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 1995 CanLII 66 (SCC),  3 S.C.R. 405, at para. 19; Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s London v. Scalera, 2000 SCC 24 (CanLII),  1 S.C.R. 551, at paras. 67-71; Derksen v. 539938 Ontario Ltd., 2001 SCC 72 (CanLII),  3 S.C.R. 398, at para. 49; Zurich Insurance Co. v. 686234 Ontario Ltd. (2002), 2002 CanLII 33365 (ON CA), 62 O.R. (3d) 447 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, 189 O.A.C. 197 (note), at paras. 23-28; Tannahill v. Lanark Mutual Insurance Co., 2010 ONSC 3623 (CanLII), 86 C.C.L.I. (4th) 69, at para. 26; and, Sam’s Auto Wrecking Co. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, 2013 ONCA 186 (CanLII), 114 O.R. (3d) 730, at para. 37.
 Responsible consumers purchase insurance policies for indemnification. Canadian courts have developed these fundamental principles of interpretation as a means of ensuring that these consumers are treated fairly and that their reasonable expectations are protected. The principles are to be applied rigorously in the interpretation of insurance contracts. It is not sufficient, as the motion judge did in this case, to cite the principles and then move on to an interpretation of a contract of insurance that is free from any analysis of how the principles apply to the contract in issue.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.