The Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) recently addressed whether a mobility scooter could be considered an “automobile” for the purposes of statutory accident benefits. In Bartok v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 18343 (ON LAT), the Tribunal found that the applicant was involved in an “accident” under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) following an incident involving a three-wheeled electric scooter.
The applicant claimed that on August 16, 2023, he had been operating a Boomer Beast 2 D Deluxe, purchased from Daymak Inc., when it suddenly malfunctioned, causing him to fall onto the roadway. He provided an X-ray confirming a fractured clavicle and sought accident benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (as amended June 1, 2016).
Intact Insurance denied the application, arguing that the Boomer Beast did not meet the SABS definition of an “automobile.”
Tribunal’s Analysis
The LAT adjudicator concluded the applicant was indeed involved in an “accident” under section 3(1) of the Schedule. Relying on the reasoning in Grummett v. Federation Insurance Co. of Canada (1999 CanLII 15103), the Tribunal found that the scooter qualified as an automobile “in ordinary parlance.”
The Boomer Beast, as noted in the decision, was designed for both on-road and off-road use and was capable of transporting passengers on public streets and highways. At the time of the incident, the vehicle was being operated on a public road. It was powered by a motor rather than muscular effort and included standard vehicle features such as a brake light, handlebars, and a seat with a backrest.
Supporting materials from Daymak described the product as a “mobility scooter for all roads,” further confirming its capacity for road use. With those findings, the Tribunal determined that the Boomer Beast satisfied the first step in the test established by Adams v. Pineland Amusement Ltd. (2007 ONCA 844), making it unnecessary to consider the remaining steps.
Other Issues
The applicant also sought $2,486 for an attendant care assessment. The Tribunal declined to order payment, finding that the insurer was not liable for the cost under section 25(1)4 of the Schedule. The applicant did not provide evidence supporting the reasonableness of the assessment fees or explaining why the assessment was necessary. Additionally, no attendant care report or completed assessment form was submitted. The adjudicator held that proof of a fractured clavicle alone was insufficient to establish a need for such an assessment.
As a result, the Tribunal found no basis for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664, concluding that Intact had not unreasonably withheld or delayed payment. The Tribunal also denied the applicant’s claim for interest, noting that no benefits were overdue under section 51 of the Schedule.
Key Takeaway
This decision illustrates how the LAT continues to apply a practical, purpose-driven approach to defining an “automobile” under the SABS. While the scooter was ultimately deemed an automobile for the purposes of the accident definition, the insurer’s denial of assessment costs was upheld for lack of substantiating evidence.
At Flaherty McCarthy LLP, we represent insurers in all aspects of statutory accident benefits and tort litigation. Our team monitors emerging LAT jurisprudence to guide clients through evolving interpretations of what constitutes an “accident” and the evidentiary thresholds required for benefit entitlement.
