Top court rejects Travelers appeal in dirt bike accident benefits case
It’s the end of the line for Travelers’ appeal of an accident benefits case involving a dirt bike driven in a closed course competition.
The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the insurer’s leave to appeal Thursday. This means a dirt bike driven in a closed course motocross competition is an “automobile” under Ontario’s auto accident benefits scheme, thus paving the way for a seriously injured driver to claim auto accident benefits from his auto insurer, as per the initial Ontario Court of Appeal ruling.
As is customary, the Supreme Court of Canada did not issue for reasons for why leaves to appeal are rejected.
The case addressed whether an exemption under Ontario’s Off-Roads Vehicles Act (ORVA) applied to the dirt bike driven by Michael Beaudin, who was rendered paraplegic by an accident during the competition.
Beaudin was driving his dirt bike in a motocross competition held on July 9, 2017, when he was severely injured. He is now confined to a wheelchair. No other vehicles or individuals were involved in the incident.
Beaudin had an auto insurance policy with Travelers, but his dirt bike was not listed on the policy. He applied for accident benefits. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada denied accident benefits coverage on the basis that his dirt bike was not an “automobile.”
Ontario law basically says a vehicle counts as an automobile if it requires insurance to be driven. However, the province’s Off-Road Vehicles Act contains an exemption for “off-road vehicles driven or exhibited at a closed course competition or rally sponsored by a motorcycle association.”
Related: Why dirt bike accident victim can get Ontario auto accident benefits
Initially, Ontario’s Licence Appeal Tribunal found the competition’s sponsor, Canadian Motorsport Racing Competition, a for-profit corporation, was affiliated with the Alberta Motorcycle Sport Association, thus qualifying the CMRC as a sponsoring motorcycle association.
Beaudin appealed and LAT’s associate chair reversed the decision. The associate chair ruled the CMRC did not qualify as a sponsor under ORVA’s definition of a “motorcycle association,” which states a motorcycle association must have “a published constitution and a membership roster of more than twenty-four persons.”
Travelers appealed, but Ontario’s Divisional Court said LAT’s ruling that CMRC did not qualify as a sponsor under the ORVA exemption was a mix of fact and law and thus could not be appealed.
The Ontario Court for Appeal likewise ruled in favour of Beaudin, finding that ORVA must be read in harmony with the public safety mandate of other Ontario vehicle-related legislation (e.g. Highway Traffic Act, the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, and the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act), which require universal insurance coverage for vehicle drivers.
“It seems to me that permitting an exemption only for sponsored events aligns with the public safety focus of the ORVA,” Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Steve Coroza wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. “Sponsoring motorcycle associations would have safety protocols in place for both closed course competitions and rallies and could be counted on to promote public safety and the safe driving of competition vehicles.
“Indeed, the rules of a sponsored competition would likely prescribe what protective equipment must be worn. While minimum age requirements may not be enforced, competitors would be subject to adult supervision. It is also apparent from the evidence submitted before the LAT in this case that organized competitions also provide at least some level of insurance protection for participants.”
Feature image courtesy of iStock.com/SimonSkafar
