Background:

• Joshua Burnham was injured as a passenger in a stolen vehicle involved in a crash. He filed a claim against Co-operators, asserting that he was unaware the vehicle was stolen.
• The motion judge dismissed Burnham's claim, interpreting the insurance policy to exclude coverage for passengers in stolen vehicles regardless of their knowledge about the theft.

Key Legal Issues:

1. Policy Interpretation: Whether the insurance policy excludes coverage for passengers unaware the vehicle is stolen.
2. Exclusion Clauses: How to interpret the exclusion clauses concerning passengers in stolen vehicles.

Court of Appeal's Decision:

• The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in interpreting the policy. The court decided that passengers who do not know, and have no reason to know, that a vehicle is stolen should not be excluded from coverage.
• The correct interpretation of the policy exclusion, according to the Court of Appeal, protects innocent passengers in stolen vehicles, which aligns with the broader intent of insurance legislation to cover such victims rather than exclude them.

Outcome:

• The appeal was allowed, reversing the motion judge's decision. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the interpretation that the exclusion does not apply to unaware passengers.
• This decision emphasizes the interpretation of insurance policies in a manner that protects rather than excludes coverage for innocent passengers, supporting the legislative goal of spreading the risk among insurers rather than the public fund.
• The court document does not specify the exact amount awarded or the costs.