Dirt Bikes And The Insurance Requirement Exemption Under The Off-Road Vehicles Act: Beaudin V. Travelers Insurance Company Of Canada, 2022 ONCA 806

• Published date: 09 December 2022
• Subject Matter: Insurance, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Transport, Rail, Road & Cycling, Insurance Laws and Products, Personal Injury
• Law Firm: McLeish Orlando LLP
• Author: Mr Brandon Pedersen and Cody Malloy (Summer Student)

This Ontario Court of Appeal decision stems from an incident in which Michael Beaudin, the respondent, was seriously injured in a motocross competition when he was driving his dirt bike. Mr. Beaudin is a paraplegic as a result of his injuries. The main issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Beuadin's dirt bike was exempt from the insurance requirement under the Off-Road Vehicles Act (ORVA).

Background - the LAT and Divisional Court

Beaudin was catastrophically injured at a closed course (i.e., a racetrack or motosport park) motocross competition sanctioned by the Canadian Motorsport Racing Competition (CMRC) on July 9, 2017. The appellant, Travelers Insurance Company of Canada (Travelers), had an automobile insurance policy with Mr. Beaudin, but the dirt bike was not directly insured under the policy. Mr. Beaudin applied for accident benefits (ABs) through his policy with Travelers, but his application was denied on the basis that the collision was not an "accident" within the meaning of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) because the dirt bike is not an "automobile" within the meaning of section 224(1) of the Insurance Act (IA). The License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) held in favour of Mr. Beaudin, finding that the dirt bike did constitute an automobile for the purposes of the IA. Travelers appealed to the Divisional Court, who dismissed the insurer's appeal.

The insurer appealed to the Court of Appeal, raising three grounds:

1. The Divisional Court erred by concluding that this Court in Bensonhad already ruled that only sponsored closed course competitions are exempt from the ORVA.
2. The Divisional Court erred in accepting the Associate Chair's conclusion that the purpose of the ORVAis to promote universal insurance coverage for all drivers of off-road vehicles. And
3. The Divisional Court "erred in failing to properly interpret the ORVAwithin the entire legislative scheme of auto insurance."

The Legislation

Section 3(1) of SABS defines an "accident" as "an incident in which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes an impairment or directly causes damage to any prescription eyewear, denture, hearing aid, prosthesis or other medical or dental device".

SABS does not define an "automobile", so the Court applied the following three-step test:

• 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...