Undertaking not to drive does not mean someone not authorized to drive

If someone is released from custody on the basis they won't drive -- they give an undertaking -- and then breach the undertaking are they still "authorized by law" to drive? Apparently they are: see today's decision in Kereluik v. Jevco Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 338. The decision is of importance to more than just insurance -- justices of the peace may see the issue in their courts:


... on the date of the second accident, the respondent was "authorized by law" to drive within the meaning of Condition Four since: (1) he held a valid Ontario driver's licence; (2) he was in compliance with the terms of that licence; (3) the licence contained no alcohol-related condition or prohibition; and (4) his licence was in good standing.