Accident Benefits for Off-Road Vehicles
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released a decision confirming that Statutory Accident Benefits are often available to individuals riding off-road vehicles even if they are not listed on a policy of insurance.[1]
In Beaudin v. Travelers, Mr. Beaudin was riding a dirt bike in a motorcross competition when he was severely injured. No other vehicles were involved in the collision and the vehicle was not insured under any policy of motor vehicle insurance.
Mr. Beaudin had his only policy of insurance with Travelers Canada, but his dirt bike was not listed on this policy. After his accident, he nevertheless applied to Travelers for benefits and was denied on the basis that his dirt bike was not considered an “automobile” within the meaning of s. 224(1) of the Insurance Act[2], and 3(1) of the SABS which states that an accident must involve an “automobile”. Mr. Beaudin disputed this benefit denial through the License Appeal Tribunal, where he was successful in arguing his dirt bike was an “automobile” and that he was entitled to accident benefits from Travelers. Travelers appealed, and the case was eventually heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Because the term “automobile” is undefined in the SABS[3], the Court of Appeal undertook a three-part analysis to determine whether a motor vehicle that caused the accident is an “automobile”.
-
- Is the vehicle an automobile in ordinary parlance?
- If not, is it defined as an automobile in the wording of the insurance policy?
- If not, does the vehicle fall within any enlarged definition of automobile in a relevant statute?
Under the Insurance Act, section 224(1), an automobile includes,
-
- a motor vehicle required under any Act to be insured under a motor vehicle liability policy, and
- a vehicle prescribed by regulation to be an automobile.
Under the Off-Road Vehicles Act[4], (“ORVA”), section 15(1): No person shall drive an off-road vehicle unless it is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with s. 15(1) of the Insurance Act. As off-road vehicles are required to be insured and fall within section 224(1) of the Insurance Act in most situations, they are commonly considered “automobiles” for the purposes of section 3(1) of the SABS. This would entitle the operator to accident benefits if they were involved in an accident.
However, there are a number of exclusions to section 15(1) of the ORVA, including where the vehicle is driven on land occupied by the owner of the vehicle. Similarly, section 2(1)(5) of Regulation 863 under the ORVA, states that “where the vehicle is driven at a closed course competition or rally sponsored by a motorcycle association” it is exempt from the provision of the Act and Regulations When these exclusions apply, the off-road vehicle would not be considered an “automobile” for the purpose of collecting accident benefits.
In Beaudin, Travelers was arguing that the dirt bike was ridden at a closed competition and as such fell within the exclusion for insurance, meaning it was not an “automobile” and Mr. Beaudin was not entitled to accident benefits.
In coming to its reasons, the Court of Appeal reconfirmed that the purpose of the ORVA is to promote universal insurance coverage for all drivers of off-road vehicles. As such, the default position was that all off-road vehicles were required to be insured unless they met the very narrow and specific exemptions outlined by the Act. The competition Mr. Beaudin was in was not sponsored by a motorcycle association and therefore Mr. Beaudin argued that it did not fall within the exemption outlined in Section 2(1)(5) of Regulation 863. Travelers attempted to argue that the mandatory insurance requirements of the ORVA were not intended to extend to any closed course competitions regardless of the sponsorship elements.
In rejecting this argument, the Court held:
[59] I do not accept this argument. As noted above, the exemption in the regulation must be interpreted so as to fit the remedial nature of the scheme established by the ORVA and to further its purposes. The insurance requirement is one prong of that public safety scheme. Section 15 establishes a general requirement for drivers to maintain insurance from which only narrow exceptions are carved out.
[60] Because the ORVA is one component in a larger single scheme of automobile insurance, the ORVA must also be interpreted harmoniously with the other statutes that make up that scheme. In my view, the Divisional Court’s conclusion that only sponsored closed course competitions and rallies are exempt from the provisions of the ORVA is correct in light of context and purpose of the entire legislative scheme.
[61] First, an interpretation of s. 2(1)5 that exempts participants in all closed course competitions regardless of sponsorship is inconsistent with the remedial purposes of the ORVA.
[62] The ORVA ensures that those who are covered by the provisions of the Act must wear helmets, imposes a minimum age of 12 for drivers, and as this court noted in Haliburton (County) v. Gillespie, 2013 ONCA 40, 114 O.R. (3d) 116, there is a mandatory insurance requirement which protects injured persons as well as owners of property damaged by off-road vehicles.
As such, the Court held that the dirt bike required insurance during the closed course competition and fell within Section 224(1) of the Insurance Act and Section 3(1) of the SABS. As a result, the dirt bike was considered an “automobile” under the SABS and Mr. Beaudin was entitled to Accident Benefits from Travelers.
This case is a reminder that the general purpose of insurance legislation in Ontario is to ensure both the safety of road users and protection of accident victims through mandatory insurance requirements. It is always worthwhile to consult a personal injury lawyer when you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident, even where an off-road vehicle is involved, to determine whether you may be entitled to Accident Benefits or other damages.
[1] Beaudin v. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada, 2022 ONCA 806.
[2] Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c. I.8.
[3] STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFITS SCHEDULE — EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2010, O Reg 34/10.
[4] RSO 1990, c. O.4.
