[mrkajz44]

So is the basis of the argument the pre-existing condition (which the family doctor refutes), or the fact that the travel policy lapsed prior to the baby being born (policy lapsed on Nov 9 and baby born on Dec 10 according to CBC article)?

My thought with travel insurance is if something happens during the trip, when the policy is active, even if more expenses are incurred after the policy lapses (ie end of my planned trip), they are still covered as the condition arose during the window of a valid policy. Is that wrong? That sort of sounds like Blue Crosses agrument.