section in Shipman, supra, where the policy clearly stated that
there was “no coverage”.
 It is also markedly different from the words used in
para. 1.8 of the CAA policy, entitled “Who and What We Won’t
Cover”. In that portion of the policy, the contract sets out a list of
instances where there is “no coverage”, including use or operation without the owner’s consent; use as a taxi cab; use as a
rented vehicle; and so on. Notable by its absence is any statement that there will be no coverage where the driver is not
licensed to drive.
 In Matt v. Crawford (2010), 103 O.R. (3d) 715,  O.J.
No. 3622 (S.C.J.), Mullins J. considered this same provision in
the standard automobile insurance policy. She reviewed the
authorities that hold that insurance coverage provisions are to
be interpreted broadly and exclusions narrowly, and that ambi-guities are to be resolved in favour of the insured. At para. 14,
she concluded that a clause that states only that claims “may be
denied” cannot clearly be found to preclude access to uninsured
automobile coverage. I agree with her conclusion.
 That conclusion is reinforced by the comments of the
Ontario Court of Appeal in Chambo v. Musseau (1993), 15 O.R.
(3d) 305,  O.J. No. 2140 (C.A.). At para. 11, Osborne J.A.,
speaking for the court, said this:
Uninsured motorist coverage became part of the standard form of automo-
bile insurance policy in March 1980. It was part of a broad statutory scheme
which required that all motor vehicles in Ontario be insured and which
provided that all automobile insurance policies issued in Ontario had to
include, among other things, uninsured motorist coverage. The coverage is
statutory in the sense that its basic elements are set out in s. 231 of the
Insurance Act. The legislative intent was to internalize costs to the activity
(driving a motor vehicle) which created them. Before March 1980 the costs
resulting from the negligence of an uninsured driver were externalized, in
that they were paid by the taxpayers generally, through the Motor Vehicle
Accidents Claim Fund. In my view, the uninsured motorist coverage legisla-
tion is remedial and should be given a broad and liberal interpretation.
 Furthermore, the wording of s. 5.9.1 of the policy also
supports the conclusion that a breach of s. 1.4.5 will not disentitle the claimant to coverage. As already discussed, I interpret
that provision to mean that it is only a breach of one of the conditions in that s. 5 (Uninsured Automobile Coverage) that will
take away the right to that class of coverage. If it was intended
that a breach of other conditions found elsewhere in the contract
would disentitle the claimant to this coverage, s. 5.9.1 could
have said so. Since it did not, I conclude that s. 1.4.5 does not
apply to a claim for coverage under s. 5.