For years, the conventional view in Ontario was relatively straightforward: if an injured person was operating an e-scooter or similar electric device and no conventional motor vehicle was involved, there was often no access to statutory accident benefits (“ABs”).

That assumption may now be less certain.

A recent Licence Appeal Tribunal decision, Bartok v. Intact Insurance Company, suggests that some electric scooters and mobility-style devices may qualify as “automobiles” for the purposes of Ontario’s accident benefits regime — even where they are not traditionally viewed as motor vehicles.

While LAT decisions are not binding precedent, the ruling is significant because it potentially broadens access to accident benefits for injured riders of certain electric devices.

 

The Growing Legal Problem With E-Scooters

Ontario law has struggled to keep pace with the rapid growth of e-bikes, e-scooters, and other electrically powered mobility devices.

Some resemble bicycles. Others look more like small motorcycles or road vehicles. Many are capable of travelling at significant speeds and operating on public roads alongside conventional traffic.

At the same time, Ontario’s legislative framework remains inconsistent.

Under the Highway Traffic Act, e-bikes are generally not classified as motor vehicles and are not subject to the same licensing or insurance requirements as automobiles. Riders must still comply with certain rules, including:

• being at least 16 years old;
• wearing an approved bicycle or motorcycle helmet;
• keeping the device in proper working order; and
• following the rules of the road applicable to cyclists.

However, the legal treatment of larger or more powerful electric scooters remains far less clear.

This uncertainty has created a difficult landscape for both insurers and injured riders. In some cases, insurers have taken the position that certain e-scooters are not “automobiles” under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (“SABS”), leaving injured riders without access to accident benefits. In other situations, insurers have argued the opposite — namely, that a device should have been insured under an automobile policy.

 

The Bartok Decision

In Bartok v. Intact Insurance Company, the applicant was injured while operating a three-wheeled electric scooter known as the “Boomer Beast.”

According to the decision, the scooter allegedly malfunctioned and caused the rider to fall onto the roadway, resulting in injuries including a fractured clavicle.

The insurer denied accident benefits on the basis that the Boomer Beast was not an “automobile.”

The Tribunal disagreed.

The adjudicator applied the Ontario Court of Appeal’s test from Adams v. Pineland Amusement Ltd., which asks, among other things, whether a vehicle qualifies as an automobile “in ordinary parlance.”

Several features of the Boomer Beast influenced the analysis:

• it had three wheels, handlebars, headlights, brake lights, and a speedometer;
• it included a full seat with a backrest;
• it was capable of travelling approximately 40 km/h;
• it was marketed as “road legal”; and
• it was designed for use on roads and rough terrain.

The adjudicator concluded that the device was designed for the transportation of persons on public roads and highways and therefore qualified as an automobile “in ordinary parlance.”

As a result, the incident was found to be an “accident” under the SABS.

 

Why the Decision Matters

Although Bartok is not binding on other adjudicators or courts, the reasoning is noteworthy.

Traditionally, many e-scooter claims were viewed through a fairly rigid lens: no conventional automobile meant no accident benefits claim.

Bartok potentially relaxes that traditional approach.

The decision suggests that the focus may shift away from what a device is labelled and toward how it actually functions. Factors such as speed, roadway use, design, size, and intended purpose may become increasingly important in determining whether a particular device qualifies as an automobile for accident benefits purposes.

The adjudicator also rejected the insurer’s argument that recognizing such devices as automobiles could create practical insurance concerns, noting that the SABS is ultimately consumer protection legislation.

 

A Continuing Grey Area

Despite decisions like Bartok, Ontario’s regulatory approach to e-scooters remains fragmented.

E-scooters are prohibited in some municipalities, including Toronto, while other municipalities participate in Ontario’s E-Scooter Pilot Program.

Municipal rules vary considerably regarding:

• where e-scooters may operate;
• whether permits are required;
• speed restrictions; and
• other operational requirements.

Ontario also does not currently require most e-scooters to be licensed, registered, or insured under standard automobile insurance policies.

As a result, disputes involving accident benefits coverage for e-scooters and similar devices will likely continue to evolve on a case-by-case basis.

 

Takeaway for Injured Riders

The assumption that “no car means no accident benefits” may no longer always apply in Ontario.

Where an electric scooter or mobility-style device is designed for roadway transportation and functions similarly to a motor vehicle, there may now be stronger arguments that the incident qualifies as an “accident” under the SABS.

Whether a particular device qualifies will remain highly fact-specific. However, Bartok signals that Ontario tribunals may be prepared to adopt a more functional approach when analyzing modern electric transportation devices and accident benefits entitlement.

 

Contact Rotondo Law Firm Professional Corporation

Rotondo Law Firm Professional Corporation represents individuals injured in motor vehicle, accident benefits, e-bike, e-scooter, and other serious personal injury matters across Ontario.

If you were injured while operating an e-scooter, mobility device, or other electric vehicle and have questions about accident benefits entitlement or insurance coverage, contact our office to discuss your rights and potential claims.