from, counsel for CNA and for Chubb. I have considered those
further submissions in reaching the conclusions set out below.
Standard of review
 All parties agree that the standard review in relation to
the decision of an arbitrator in circumstances such as this is
reasonableness: Intact Insurance Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co. of
Canada (2016), 131 O.R. (3d) 625,  O.J. No. 4113, 2016
ONCA 609: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick,  1 S.C.R. 190,
 S.C.J. No. 9, 2008 SCC 9.
 CNA submits that the Arbitrator’s conclusion that Mr.
Ekstein was a deemed named insured under the CNA policy
based on his finding of “regular use” was unreasonable. For the
reasons that follow, I agree.
 In reaching his conclusion, the Arbitrator relied on two
previous decisions. In the first case, Dominion v. Federated,
the deemed named insured provision was applied where the
policy sought to be invoked covered all automobiles on a used
car lot. The father of the claimant was a 50 per cent owner of
the business that operated the car lot. It was standard practice
for the father/co-owner to drive one of the vehicles on the lot
when he chose to do so. On the occasion in question, the
father/co-owner allowed a third party to drive one of the vehicles from the lot to take the son of the father/co-owner to
a certain location. This is when the accident occurred. The arbitrator in that case held that since the father/co-owner had
regular use of the vehicles that were subject to the policy, he was
a deemed named insured under the company policy. As a result,
the insurer under the company policy was obliged to pay the
statutory accident benefits.
 In the other case, Dominion v. Lombard, the insurance
policy sought to be engaged was issued to the claimant’s
employer. During the course of her employment, the claimant
was provided with regular use of a van owned by the employer
and insured under the policy in question. Although the accident
took place out of Ontario and did not involve the van — indeed,
the claimant was struck by a motor vehicle while riding a bicycle
in Oregon — the arbitrator concluded that the policy responded.
The essence of the finding was based on the fact that during the
course of her employment (from which she was on vacation at
the time), an insured automobile (the van) was ordinarily made
available for the claimant’s regular use by her employer. This
included the finding that the claimant continued to have control