How has the deemed named insured provision been interpreted in the context of a motor vehicle accident claim?

In reaching his conclusion, the Arbitrator relied on two previous decisions. In the first case, Dominion v. Federated, the deemed named insured provision was applied where the policy sought to be invoked covered all automobiles on a used car lot. The father of the claimant was a 50% owner of the business that operated the car lot. It was standard practice for the father/co-owner to drive one of the vehicles on the lot when he chose to do so. On the occasion in question, the father/co-owner allowed a third party to drive one of the vehicles from the lot to take the son of the father/co-owner to a certain location. This is when the accident occurred. The arbitrator in that case held that since the father/co-owner had regular use of the vehicles that were subject to the policy, he was a deemed named insured under the company policy. As a result, the insurer under the company policy was obliged to pay the statutory accident benefits.

In the other case, Dominion v. Lombard, the insurance policy sought to be engaged was issued to the claimant's employer. During the course of her employment, the claimant was provided with regular use of a van owned by the employer and insured under the policy in question. Although the accident took place out of Ontario and did not involve the van – indeed, the claimant was struck by a motor vehicle while riding a bicycle in Oregon – the arbitrator concluded that the policy responded. The essence of the finding was based on the fact that during the course of her employment (from which she was on vacation at the time), an insured automobile (the van) was ordinarily made available for the claimant's regular use by her employer. This included the finding that the claimant continued to have control of the vehicle despite being on vacation, which the arbitrator described as "sufficient residual control to make her a deemed named insured."