Adjudicator classifies three-wheeled electric vehicle as an automobile
The Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal determined that an applicant was involved in an accident under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule that involved a Boomer Beast 2 D Deluxe, which qualified as an automobile in ordinary parlance.
In Bartok v Intact Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 18343 (ON LAT), the applicant was involved in an incident on Aug. 16, 2023. He said he was operating a Boomer Beast, purchased from Daymak Inc., that spontaneously broke and made him fall onto the roadway.
As medical evidence, the applicant relied on an X-ray showing a fractured clavicle. He requested benefits for his injuries under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016).
The respondent insurance company denied the benefits. Before the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s Automobile Accident Benefits Service, the parties disagreed on whether the Boomer Beast was an automobile under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.
An adjudicator of the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the applicant’s involvement in an accident as defined in s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
Applying Grummett v. Federation Insurance Co. of Canada, 1999 CanLII 15103, the tribunal considered the Boomer Beast an automobile in ordinary parlance.
The tribunal determined that the Boomer Beast, whose purpose and function was on-road and off-road use, was designed for and capable of transporting passengers on streets and highways.
In this case, the tribunal found that the applicant had been operating the Boomer Beast on a public road at the time of the accident.
The tribunal noted that a mechanism other than muscular power propelled the three-wheel electric vehicle, which was equipped with a brake light, handlebars, and a seat with a back.
The tribunal added that a Daymak catalogue described the Boomer Beast as a mobility scooter capable of going on and off road, while the relevant website described it as a mobility scooter for all roads.
Having found that the Boomer Beast met the first step of the test in Adams v. Pineland Amusement Ltd. et al., 2007 ONCA 844, the tribunal deemed it unnecessary to tackle the two subsequent steps.
Next, the tribunal did not find the applicant entitled to $2,486 for an attendant care assessment in a disputed treatment plan. The tribunal did not find the respondent insurer liable for the cost of the assessment under s. 25(1)4 of the Schedule.
The tribunal noted that the applicant did not provide:
The tribunal added that evidence of a fractured clavicle was not enough on its own to establish the need for an assessment for the preparation of an attendant care needs form.
Given its finding that the insurer did not need to pay the cost of the attendant care assessment, the tribunal also did not find the insurer liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 for unreasonably withholding or delaying payments.
Lastly, the tribunal did not find the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits, as no benefits were overdue under s. 51 of the Schedule.
