Coverage”. Section 5.9 is subtitled “Limitations on Legal Action”,
and the first subparagraph thereunder is 5.9.1, entitled “Condi-
tions of This Policy Must be Met”. It reads as follows:
No person has a right to sue us for compensation under this Section for
injury or damage caused by an accident involving an uninsured or unidenti-
fied automobile, unless the conditions in this Section of your policy (Unin-
sured Automobile Coverage) have been met.
 It is important to note that this paragraph does not say
that failing to comply with a statutory condition, or any other
condition of the policy, will disentitle the claimant from coverage. Instead, it is only a breach of “the conditions in this Section
of your policy (Underinsured Automobile Coverage)” that will
result in a denial of compensation.
 There is no condition or term in s. 5 that provides for a
denial of coverage where the vehicle is driven, or permitted to be
driven, by a person who is not authorized by law to drive.
 I conclude, therefore, that CAA cannot rely on a breach of
statutory condition 4(1) as a basis for denying this coverage
because statutory conditions do not apply to such coverage
unless the contract so provides, and the contract does not so
 That is not the end of the matter, however. CAA also
relies on a breach of para. 1.4.5 of the contract. It is found in s. 1
of the policy, entitled “Introduction”. Paragraph 1.4 is entitled
“Your Responsibilities”, and states the following:
If you fail to meet your responsibilities, claims under this policy, with the
exception of certain Accident Benefits, may be denied.
 Paragraph 1.4.5 is found below para. 1.4, and reads as
You agree not to drive or operate the automobile, or allow anyone else to
drive or operate the automobile, when not authorized by law.
 Again, there has been a clear breach of this provision. The
question remains whether this provision applies to uninsured
 It is immediately obvious that the contract does not clearly
provide for a denial of coverage where this term is breached.
Instead, it states only that claims “may” be denied. That implies
the possibility that claims may not be denied as well. The word
“may” is capable of several interpretations, and the one most
favourable to the insured is that it is synonymous with the word
“might”. That is a far cry from the wording of the relevant