Correct Violating "authority to drive" under the insurance Act is NOT the same as being "disqualified" Disqualified is a term strictly for use with the HTA. Therefore, the OP WOULD have violated 4(1) as he was "authorized" to operate that class of vehicle, with the class of licence he held at the time. Apples to Oranges. So he wasn't in fact Authorized to operate the vehicle but he was NOT disqualified, from operating the vehicle. If he were, indeed disqualified, the charge laid would be operate motor vehicle while suspended... I have written that ticket more than a few times..lol
Section 8 of the OAP-1 lists statutory conditions. OP would have violated 4(1) - authority to drive:
"The insured shall not drive or permit any other person to drive or operate the automobile unless the insured or other person is authorized by law to drive or operate it."
OP did not have authority to drive on a 400 series highway. He is not qualified to operate a motorcycle on the highway.
OP cannot be covered under DCPD because DCPD requires you to be not-at-fault for the accident.
Since OP has breached a statutory condition, liability exposure becomes limited to the minimum legal amounts ($200,000) to which his insurer will pay, and collect from OP.
The OP's license is not in effect when he rides his bike on the 400 series highway. There's no two ways about it.
233 (1) of the Insurance Act of Ontario - Where:
(b) the insured contravenes a term of the contract or commits a fraud, a claim by the insured is invalid and the right of the insured to recover indemnity is forfeited.
This includes first-party and third-party indemnification. so in this case, the OP cannot make a claim for damages on his own vehicle (via Collision coverage), and cannot look to his insurer to defend him for third-party damages (via Liability coverage).