How have the courts interpreted the meaning of uninsured motorist coverage legislation?

In Chambo v. Musseau et al.,(1993) 15 O.R. (3d) at 305, C.A. Osborne J.A. discussed the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage and how the legislation should be interpreted: The legislative intent was to internalize costs to the activity (driving a motor vehicle) which created them. Before March 1980 the costs resulting from the negligence of an uninsured driver were externalized, in that they were paid by the taxpayers generally, through the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Fund. In my view, the uninsured motorist coverage legislation is remedial and should be given a broad and liberal interpretation. [at para. 11] [Emphasis added.]