general rules of contract construction be employed to resolve that ambiguity:
Ledcor, at para. 50. Finally, if these general rules of construction fail to resolve the
ambiguity, courts will construe the contract contra proferentem, and interpret
coverage provisions broadly and exclusion clauses narrowly: Ledcor, at para. 51.
At the first step of the analysis for standard form contracts of insurance,
the words used must be given their ordinary meaning, “as they would be
understood by the average person applying for insurance, and not as they
might be perceived by persons versed in the niceties of insurance law”:
Co-operators Life Insurance Co. v. Gibbens, 2009 SCC 59,  3 S.C.R. 605, at
para. 21; see also Ledcor, at para. 27.
 Clause 8(a) of the applicable insurance policy, under the
heading “Forgery or Alteration”, provides:
We will pay for loss resulting directly from forgery or alteration of any
cheque, draft, promissory note, bill of exchange or similar promises payment
in “money” that you or your agent has issued, or that was issued by someone
who impersonates you or your agent.
 The term “money” is further defined in the policy as
“currency, coins, and bank notes in current use and having a face
value, travelers’ cheques, registered cheques and money orders
held for sale to the public”.
 Online banking is not mentioned as one of the instruments to
which forgery or alternation applies. Therefore, if online banking is
analogous to these instruments in that it “similarly promises
payment in ‘money’”, within the meaning of this clause, then the
losses relating to these credit card payments falls within the
“Forgery or Alteration” coverage, and Martinez’s unauthorized
use of online banking to make these credit card payments may be
covered by the policy in the same way the cheques forged by
Martinez were covered.
 It is somewhat surprising that there is not yet significant
case law on the question of whether online banking is analogous to
a promise to pay “money” or more analogous to a transfer of
money itself ( i.e., analogous to currency, coins and bank notes).
I was referred to no case by either party which squarely addresses
 Where the question of how to characterize online banking
has arisen, it has been raised in passing. For example, in Walker
v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2011 CarswellOnt 1944 (F.S.C.O. Arb.), the
arbitrator dealt with the following issue regarding the compliance
with proper notice, at para. 14:
Section 11(1.3) of Ontario Regulation 777/93 requires that the notice must
advise an insured person that the insurance contract will terminate on
a specified day, unless the insured person pays an administration fee and the
full premium instalments owing to the insurer by cash, money order or certi-
fied cheque. The notice Scottish and York alleges it sent to Ms. Walker lists
certified cheque, online or telephone banking and credit card as the 3 methods