Statutory conditions are relevant to this motion, because
CAA pleads that the plaintiff has breached statutory condition
4(1), found in s. 8 of the policy. That condition states:
4(1) The 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.
 The final piece of the regulatory framework is found in
s. 10 of a regulation to the Act, entitled Uninsured Automobile
Coverage, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 676 (“Regulation 676”). That section
reads as follows:
10. In so far as applicable, the general provisions, definitions, exclusions
and statutory conditions as contained in a motor vehicle liability policy also
apply to payments under the contract under subsection 265(1) of the Act.
 The interplay between the statutory and regulatory provisions noted above, and the provisions of the policy which provide for uninsured automobile coverage, was considered by the
Ontario Court of Appeal in Ortiz v. Dominion of Canada General
Insurance Co. (2001), 52 O.R. (3d) 130,  O.J. No. 27 (C.A.).
There, the plaintiff had been struck by an uninsured motorist in
Guatemala. His motor vehicle insurance policy contained a territorial limit that limited coverage to an incident that occurs in
Canada, the United States of America or on a vessel travelling
between those two countries. The motion judge had held that the
territorial limit was inconsistent with the terms of the Act. The
Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that there was no ambiguity
or conflict between the policy limitation and the terms of the Act.
 The court focused on the words found at the end of
s. 265(1), that the coverage is “subject to the terms, conditions,
provisions, exclusions and limits as are prescribed by the regulations”. It held that it was open to the Lieutenant Governor in
Council to provide, by regulation, that the general provisions of
the standard motor vehicle policy applied to uninsured automobile coverage.
 The clause in question was in clear terms. Section 5.1 of
the policy, subtitled “Territory”, stated this:
This Policy applies to loss or damage to persons or property caused by an
incident that arises out of the ownership, operation or use of an automobile
and that occurs in Canada, the United States of America or on a vessel trav-
elling between ports of those countries.
 Mr. Justice Sharpe, speaking for the court, concluded the
following, at para. 14: