(2) Secondly, insurance available under a contract evidenced by a motor
vehicle liability policy under which the driver of the automobile is entitled to indemnity, either as an insured named in the contract, as the
spouse of an insured named in the contract who resides with that
insured or as a driver named in the contract, is excess to the insurance
referred to in paragraph 1.
(3) Thirdly, insurance available under a contract evidenced by a motor
vehicle liability policy under which the owner of the automobile is entitled to indemnity as an insured named in the contract is excess to the
insurance referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.
 Counsel for the applicant submits that there is a conflict
between the applicable provision of the OAP 1 and the applicable provision of the Act. In this view, the first loss insurer is the
insurer of the person who rents the vehicle where that person is
the named insured under their own policy; and if that is not
applicable then the loss insurer is the insurer of the driver of the
vehicle where that person is either the named insured, the
spouse of the named insured, or, like Ms. Perets, a driver listed
by the named insured in an insurance policy; and if neither of
those is applicable, then the loss insurer is the insurer of the
rental car company that owns the vehicle.
 If counsel for the applicant is correct, the Act’s provision
respecting the second of these possibilities collides with the
terms of the standard automobile insurance policy. As indicated,
s. 2.2.4 provides that there is no coverage for a driver who is
a listed driver but not a named insured when it comes to driving
a rented vehicle. Applicant’s counsel contends that there is,
accordingly, a direct collision between s. 2.2.4 of the OAP 1 and
s. 277(1.1)2 of the Act.
 It is the applicant’s view that the resolution of this conflict is that the Act trumps the standard policy terms. He cites
the judgment of Sharpe J.A. in Ortiz v. Dominion of Canada
General Insurance Co. (2001), 52 O.R. (3d) 130,  O.J. No.
27 (C.A.) for the proposition that [at para. 10], “. . . in the case of
conflict or inconsistency, the terms of the legislation must prevail over the terms of the Regulation or the terms of the policy”.
 Counsel for the respondent takes the view that there is no
conflict between the Act and the OAP 1. He submits that the language of s. 277(1.1) emphasizes priorities in the event of multiple
available policies, but it does not fill in any extra coverage where
that coverage is not available under a given policy. Specifically,
s. 277(1.1)2 provides that the first loss insurer is an insurer where
coverage is “available under a contract . . . under which the
driver of the automobile is entitled to indemnity . . . as a driver
named in the contract” (emphasis added). Under the standard
OAP 1 terms, coverage is not available to a driver such as