Is a rugged mobility scooter an "automobile"? Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal will decide again after ordering a rehearing in an Intact accident-benefits dispute.
The tribunal granted Intact Insurance Company's reconsideration request in a decision released June 23, 2026, cancelling a March 5, 2026 ruling that had found a claimant was involved in an "accident" while driving a Boomer Beast, a vehicle marketed as a mobility scooter.
Whether the applicant was in an "accident" under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule hinged on whether the Boomer Beast qualified as an "automobile." The original decision applied the three-part test from Adams v. Pineland Amusements Ltd. and found the vehicle was an "automobile" in ordinary parlance, so it never reached the test's second and third steps.
On reconsideration, Adjudicator Ulana Pahuta found the tribunal erred in law in applying that ordinary-parlance test. The earlier ruling had leaned on whether the Boomer Beast was capable of driving on streets and highways. But Grummett v. Federation Insurance Co. of Canada also asks whether a vehicle was "designed for ordinary vehicular traffic on highways or city streets," a factor the tribunal had not weighed.
The record described the Boomer Beast as equipped with a brake light, handlebars, three wheels and a seat, with a speedometer and a top speed of 40 km/hr. It measured 72 inches by 39 inches by 58 inches. Promotional material called it rugged and able to travel on dirt roads, snow, sand or pavement, telling buyers they could create their own roads. None of it showed the vehicle on highways, city streets or in traffic.
Pahuta also flagged a factual error. The original ruling found the Boomer Beast could transport passengers, yet the vehicle carried only the driver. On its own, she held, that mistake would not have changed the outcome. The unresolved design question did.
The adjudicator noted the tribunal had not explained whether a vehicle that is road legal to be driven along the side of the road, without a licence or insurance, is the same as one designed for ordinary road traffic. Bicycles, e-bikes and motor-assisted bicycles share that permission, the insurer argued, and none are automobiles.
Because the coverage question was reopened, Pahuta declined to rule on the applicant's own reconsideration request over a denied attendant care assessment, calling it premature. That request was dismissed.
A new adjudicator will now rehear whether the applicant was in an "accident" and, if needed, the benefits issues. The parties may file supplemental submissions on whether the Boomer Beast fits any enlarged statutory definition of "automobile," the third Adams step left untouched the first time.
For claims professionals, the reconsideration is a reminder that the ordinary-parlance test turns on more than a vehicle's features and top speed. Pahuta found the tribunal had to weigh whether the Boomer Beast was designed for ordinary road traffic, not just whether it could reach it.
