by which Ms. Walker could remit her premium payment to Scottish and York
to continue her insurance coverage. Ms. Walker contends that online or telephone banking payments are electronic transfers and not cash and therefore
the notice does not comply with the legislation.
 Having determined the issue on another point, the arbitrator
did not have to address the argument. However, the arbitrator
noted in obiter, at paras. 24-25:
While I do not have to address this argument, I disagree with Ms. Walker.
She presented no compelling argument that an electronic or telephone
transfer of funds is not the same as a cash transfer from one party to another.
In fact, electronic or telephone transfers of funds are often easier methods of
transferring cash than withdrawing money from an account and physically
delivering the money to its intended recipient.
 Where someone impersonates another party and accesses
their online banking account without authorization for purposes
of removing funds (whether by transfer to another account, or as
here, payment of credit cards or other bills online), this action is
a sophisticated fraud. Forging cheques is similarly a species of
fraud. Criminal prosecutions for fraud may arise both from forging
cheques and unauthorized online banking transfers; see R.
v. Trotter,  O.J. No. 6436, 2012 CarswellOnt 17149 (S.C.J.).
 Interpreting this clause in the policy with its ordinary
meaning, however, I find online banking is not a form of “Forgery
 The analogy between online banking and the definition of
“money” in the policy is a close fit. When an online payment is
made on a credit card account, or as a transfer between accounts,
the funds have been moved by that action. These payments are
not a promise to pay but rather payment itself. There is no signature or other indicator of a promise by one party to pay another,
but rather a password or P.I.N. that enables a party to access to the
account from which the transfer of funds has been authorized. If
one wishes to cancel or alter the transaction, there is no cheque
or other evidence of a promise to pay which can be ripped up or
reversed; rather, an additional transaction must be undertaken
specifically to affect a new transfer.
 I do not find enough ambiguity respecting online banking
to bring it within the contra preferendum principle, which would
favour the broad interpretation of an unclear coverage provision.
 Therefore, I find that losses which flow from accessing
online banking without authorization are not included within the
“Forgery or Alteration” endorsement in State Farm’s insurance
policy for the relevant applicant (1532383 Ontario Ltd.).
 State Farm raises other concerns with respect to verifying the
amounts at issue in these online banking payments, which are