Malcolm Silver alleges are covered by the “Forgery or Alteration”
endorsement in State Farm’s insurance policy.
 Initially, State Farm took the view that Martinez’s fraud
was carried out with the use of cheques which Mr. Malcolm Silver
(“Silver”) “pre-signed”. During examinations for discovery
conducted on April 15, 2018, however, State Farm learned that
Martinez also forged cheques. State Farm has accepted that losses
tied to forged cheques are covered under the “Forgery or Alteration”
endorsement in the applicable insurance policies.
 The notice of application was issued on October 24, 2018.
 The application seeks a declaration that State Farm is
required to provide coverage to the applicants under various
policies of insurance for losses arising from the fraudulent transactions and damages for breach of contract relating to State
Farm’s denial of coverage.
 Based on the settlement of various issues between the parties
on this application, it appears that the main issue in contention
relates to losses arising from Martinez’s use of company bank
accounts to pay for her personal credit card debts by using online
banking services without authorization.
 The aggregate of the online banking payments to credit
card accounts to which the applicants contend they are entitled
under the relevant insurance policies, less deductible amounts, is
$101,474.15 (relating specifically to the losses of 1532383 Ontario
 The main issue remaining in this application is whether
the losses to Malcolm Silver, flowing from the online banking
transactions as part of Martinez’s broader fraudulent scheme, are
covered by the “Forgery or Alteration” clause in the applicable
State Farm insurance policy.
 The general principles applicable to the interpretation of
an insurance policy are not in dispute. In Sabean v. Portage La
Prairie Mutual Insurance Co.,  1 S.C.R. 121,  S.C.J.
No. 7, 2017 SCC 7, Karakatsanis J. summarized these principles
as follows (at paras. 12-13):
In Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC
37,  2 S.C.R. 23, this Court confirmed the principles of contract interpre-
tation applicable to standard form insurance contracts. The overriding principle
is that where the language of the disputed clause is unambiguous, reading the
contract as a whole, effect should be given to that clear language: Ledcor, at pa-
ra. 49; Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada,
2010 SCC 33,  2 S.C.R. 245, at para. 22; Non-Marine Underwriters,
Lloyd’s of London v. Scalera, 2000 SCC 24,  1 S.C.R. 551, at para. 71. Only
where the disputed language in the policy is found to be ambiguous, should