Case information

Insurance — Automobile insurance — Statutory accident benefits — How should Canadian courts read a statutory exemption to a mandatory insurance requirement? — Whether the legislature intended that all “closed course competitions” must be “sponsored by a motorcycle association” in the exemption from the requirement to insure off-road vehicles — Whether the purpose of the mandatory insurance exemptions is the promotion of universal coverage for all drivers of off-road vehicles, or to ensure safety on public roads, subject to exemptions for specified activities — Whether only “sponsored” closed course competitions should be exempt from the general requirement to insure off-road vehicles — Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s. 224(1) — Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O. Reg. 34/10, ss. 2(4), 3(1) — Off-Road Vehicles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.4, s. 15 — Off-Road Vehicles Act General Regulation, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 863, s. 2(1).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Mr. Beaudin drove his dirt bike in a motocross competition and was severely injured. His automobile insurance company denied statutory accident benefits because the incident was not an “accident” as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, as his dirt bike was not an “automobile” within the meaning of the Insurance Act.

At the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the adjudicator found that Mr. Beaudin was not driving an “automobile” as defined under the Act and was not entitled to statutory accident benefits. At a reconsideration hearing, the Associate Chair of the Tribunal set aside the adjudicator’s decision and held that Mr. Beaudin was driving an “automobile” and was eligible for statutory accident benefits.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeals.