The claimant was involved in an accident and sought benefits under the SABS. The insurer denied his claim, arguing that the vehicle involved—a backhoe—was not classified as an automobile, which would exempt it from SABS coverage. The claimant applied to the LAT to determine whether the backhoe qualified as an automobile. The SABS does not define the term “automobile”. As per Adams v. Pineland Amusement Ltd (2007 ONCA 844), if a vehicle falls within any enlarged definition of “automobile” in any relevant statute, it will qualify as an automobile. The LAT looked to the Highway Traffic Act (HTA), which distinguishes between “motor vehicles” and “road-building machines”. Backhoes were previously classified as “road-building machines”, which were excluded from the definition of “motor vehicles” under the HTA, but recent legislative amendments removed this exclusion. To account for this ambiguity, the LAT considered whether the Backhoe in this case was considered a tractor, an excavator, an off-road excavator or a road building machine pursuant to a specific regulation under the HTA (Road-Building Machines, O Reg 398/16). Of the three categories, only road building machines not built on a truck-chassis can be considered “automobiles” under the HTA. Pursuant to the criteria in this Regulation, the LAT determined that the Backhoe in question was an excavator that was properly classified as a “mobile equipment vehicle” that was not built on a truck-chassis. In accordance with the Adams criteria, the LAT concluded that as a “road building machine”, the subject Backhoe was considered an “automobile” under the HTA, and, therefore, the claimant was entitled to accident benefits.
