A three-wheeled electric scooter is an automobile, an Ontario tribunal has ruled - and the decision carries a message for insurers.
The ruling, released March 5, 2026, came out of a dispute between Kelly Bartok and Intact Insurance Company over whether a Boomer Beast 2 D Deluxe - a large, electric, road-ready vehicle purchased from Daymak Inc. - counts as an automobile under Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
On August 16, 2023, Bartok was riding the Boomer Beast when it spontaneously broke, sending him onto the pavement. He fractured his clavicle. He then turned to Intact for statutory accident benefits, including $2,486.00 for an attendant care assessment. Intact said no. The Boomer Beast, the insurer argued, was not an automobile.
That set the stage for a question with wider implications: where does a mobility scooter end and an automobile begin?
The Boomer Beast is not your typical sidewalk scooter. It has three wheels, a seat with a back, handlebars, a headlight, brake lights, and a speedometer. It tops out at about 40 km/hr and measures 72 by 39 by 58 inches. Its own product catalogue calls it "road legal," saying it can be ridden "along the side of the road without a license or insurance." It is also described as capable of handling both rough terrain and streets.
Adjudicator Rachel Levitsky applied a well-known three-part test from the Ontario Court of Appeal - the Adams test - which starts by asking whether a vehicle is an automobile "in ordinary parlance." Looking at the Boomer Beast's size, speed, features, and intended use on public roads, she found that it was. That settled the question without needing to go further.
Intact pushed back with a practical argument: if a vehicle like this qualifies as an automobile, then anyone with a motor vehicle insurance policy could ride one, get hurt, and file a claim - all without the insurer ever knowing the vehicle existed. Levitsky acknowledged the concern but said the test looks at a vehicle's purpose and function, not the downstream consequences for insurers. She added that the Schedule is "ultimately consumer protection legislation and must be analyzed in that light."
Still, it was not a clean win for Bartok. The Tribunal denied his $2,486.00 attendant care assessment claim, finding he had not shown the assessment was necessary or the fees reasonable. No interest or award was granted.
The decision does not set binding precedent - it is a Licence Appeal Tribunal ruling, not a court decision. But with electric mobility vehicles increasingly common on Canadian roads, many sold as requiring no licence or insurance, the line between scooter and automobile is only getting harder to draw. For insurers, this case is a signal worth watching.
Bartok v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-003081/AABS.
