The relevant facts are not in dispute.
 The action arises out of a motor vehicle accident which
occurred on November 11, 2006. The plaintiff was driving a
Ford Ranger pickup truck owned by his girlfriend Danielle
Debie. Ms. Debie’s vehicle was insured under a policy of motor
vehicle insurance issued by CAA.
 The other vehicle involved in the accident was owned by
the defendant Ronald Cresswell and operated by the defendant
Kyle Cresswell. It was not insured.
 The plaintiff issued a statement of claim, dated December
4, 2008, in which he claimed damages for injuries arising out of
the accident. He also made a claim against CAA for uninsured
automobile coverage, as provided for in Ms. Debie’s policy.
 CAA defended that claim on the basis that the plaintiff was
disentitled to uninsured automobile coverage because he was
disqualified from driving at the time of the accident. It is undisputed that he was convicted under the Criminal Code, R.S.C.
1985, c. C-46, on February 23, 2006, for driving with more than
the prescribed limit of alcohol in his blood. His driver’s licence
was thereupon suspended until February 23, 2009. He was subsequently convicted for driving while disqualified on July 11,
2006, which extended his driving suspension until February 23,
 His girlfriend, Ms. Debie, conceded that the Ford Ranger
had been previously owned by the plaintiff, but the ownership
had been transferred into her name after his driver’s licence was
suspended. The plaintiff admitted that this was done because he
could not insure the vehicle, in view of his licence suspension.
Ms. Debie proceeded to obtain her policy with CAA. On the day
of the accident, she gave the plaintiff the only set of keys to the
vehicle, knowing that he had no licence to drive, and knowing
that he was taking the vehicle to move furniture.
 The plaintiff ultimately pleaded guilty to the offence of
driving while suspended, arising out of the driving he did on the
date of the accident.
The Test for Summary Judgment
 This motion for judgment is based upon facts that are not
disputed. The sole issues to be determined are legal ones, relating to whether uninsured automobile coverage is, or is not,
available to the plaintiff. This will be determined through the
interpretation and application of the relevant statute, regulations and the terms of the policy itself.