owner of the vehicle driven by Mr. Savoie. He has been released
from the action.
 At the time of the accident, Mr. Hogan, who is Ms. Murphy’s
spouse, was employed by Emblem Flowers as a delivery van driver.
He was the company’s sole delivery driver, and the company van
was available to him for deliveries on a daily basis throughout the
work day. Aviva provided automobile insurance coverage to
Emblem Flowers under its Policy No. 6741201126 issued to
1889609 Ontario Inc. o/a Emblem Flowers (the “policy”). The
policy had a third party liability limit of $1 million, and included
an OPCF 44R Family Protection Change Form.
 Sections 1.6(b) and 2 of the OPCF 44R form provides:
1.6 “insured person” means . . .
(b) if the named insured is a corporation, an unincorporated association, partnership, sole proprietorship or other entity, any officer,
employee or partner of the named insured for whose regular use
the described automobile is provided and his or her spouse and any
dependent relative of either, while. . .
( iii) not an occupant of an automobile, who is struck by an
automobile. . .
2 The definitions in section 1 apply as of the time of the happening of an
accident for which indemnity is provided under this change form.
 Plaintiffs’ counsel points out that there are few, if any,
reported decisions interpreting this section. However, the wording
is strikingly similar to that contained in s. 66 of O. Reg. 403/96
(Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Accidents on or After
November 1, 1996) with respect to corporate and rental
vehicles, and there are several reported decisions relating to that
regulation. The relevant portions of O. Reg. 403/96 provide:
66(1) An individual who is living and ordinarily present in Ontario shall be
deemed for the purpose of this Regulation to be the named insured under the
policy insuring an automobile at the time of an accident if, at the time of the
(a) the insured automobile is being made available for the individual’s
regular use by a corporation, unincorporated association, partner-
ship, sole proprietorship or other entity[.]
 The issue in respect of OPCF 44R is whether at the time of
the accident Mr. Hogan had access to the delivery van “for whose
regular use the described automobile is provided”. The issue in
respect of O. Reg. 403/96 is whether at the time of the accident
Mr. Hogan’s employer’s “insured automobile is being made avail-
able for the individual’s regular use”.
 In other words, under both instruments, the crucial
question in determining whether Ms. Murphy is an “insured”