Category: Automobile Definition

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.

The claimant was injured while driving an off-road vehicle (a dirt bike) at a closed course competition. The insurer denied that an “accident” had occurred because the off-road vehicle was not an “automobile.” Adjudicator Kowal agreed with the insurer and held that because the dirt bike was exempt from the requirement to be insured under section 2 of the Off-Road Vehicles Act, it was not considered an “automobile.”

The claimant was riding on a motorcycle at a privately owned and operated, training and racing facility. The motorcycle owner’s manual indicated that the vehicle was designed for closed course competitions only. The motorcycle was not registered with an insurance policy nor was it plated with the Ministry of Ontario. On the day of the accident, the claimant paid a drop-in fee and signed a waiver to ride the bike. During the course of the ride, the claimant made an unsuccessful jump off of a hill. The claimant fell off the bike and as he was recovering, another rider came over the same jump and struck the claimant. Adjudicator Meray Daoud reviewed the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Adams v Pineland Amusements Ltd, 2007 ONCA 844, and noted the vehicle did not fall within an “automobile in the ordinary parlance” or listed in a policy. Adjudicator Daoud then reviewed section 224(1) of the Insurance Act and noted the vehicle was not prescribed by regulation and reasoned it had to be determined if the vehicle was required to have a motor vehicle liability policy. When reviewing the legislation identifying vehicles requiring insurance policies Adjudicator Daoud concluded the vehicle fell within the exempted category of off-road vehicles driven or exhibited at a closed course competition. Accordingly, the motorcycle was not an automobile for the purposes of accident benefits, and therefore the claims were dismissed.