In Brief
A woman claimed insurance on her son's accidental death during a sightseeing glider flight in Canada. The insurer denied the claim, arguing the motorized glider was not a 'standard aircraft' and the deceased was not a 'fare-paying passenger' in an 'air charter company' as required by policy exclusions. The Supreme Court held that: a motorized glider is an 'aircraft' under statutory and policy definitions; undefined or ambiguous terms like 'standard aircraft' must be interpreted favourably to the insured against the insurer (contra proferentem), especially where the insurer expressly excluded hang-gliding and paragliding but omitted gliding; the glider was properly licensed and registered; the Pemberton Soaring Centre operated as an 'own-use charter' company; and the deceased was a fare-paying passenger. The appeal was dismissed and the insurance claim upheld.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.