The Decision of the Arbitrator
 In relation to the underlying facts giving rise to the dispute,
the Arbitrator noted that Mr. Ekstein was injured in a pedes-trian-vehicle accident while jogging. He had a personal automobile policy with Chubb. The company of which he was the
president and owner had an automobile policy (including
optional enhanced benefits, unlike the Chubb policy) with
CNA. Mr. Ekstein did not drive any of the company’s vehicles,
most of which were trucks used in its forest products business.
 The Arbitrator found that, although he did not ordinarily
drive a company vehicle, Mr. Ekstein’s name appeared on
a “schedule of drivers” in relation to the CNA policy. This led
the Arbitrator to conclude that, although not a “named
insured”, Mr. Ekstein was a person “specified in the policy”
and therefore, an “insured” for purposes of the optional benefits. This led the Arbitrator to the further conclusion that Mr.
Ekstein was an insured under the CNA policy by reason of
being “a person specified as a driver” and the definition of
“insured” as contained in s. 3(1) of the SABS, which includes
“any person specified in the policy as a driver of the insured
automobile”. Before me, counsel for CNA confirmed that it
took no issue with these conclusions of the Arbitrator.
 Having reached the foregoing conclusions, the Arbitrator
went on to consider whether Mr. Ekstein was a “deemed named
insured” under the CNA policy pursuant to s. 3(7) of the SABS.
The reason for doing so was that if Mr. Ekstein was a named
insured under only the Chubb policy, then pursuant to s. 268(5) of
the Insurance Act, he would be obliged to claim statutory accident
benefits as against Chubb. That provision states as follows:
285(5) Despite subsection (4), if a person is a named insured under a contract evidenced by a motor vehicle liability policy . . . the person shall claim
statutory accident benefits against the insurer under that policy.
If, however, Mr. Ekstein was considered to be a named insured
under the CNA policy as well, then pursuant to s. 268(5.1) of the
Insurance Act, Mr. Ekstein in his own discretion could decide the
insurer from which he would claim the benefits.
 Despite CNA’s submissions, the Arbitrator concluded that
Mr. Ekstein was a deemed named insured under the CNA policy,
with the result that Mr. Ekstein had the discretion to decide from
which insurer he would claim benefits. Since Mr. Ekstein would
be entitled to an additional $1 million in medical and rehabilitation coverage from CNA, the Arbitrator reasoned that CNA was
the insurer he would have selected. Applying equitable principles,