The Court of Appeal, in Matheson v. Lewis, [2014 ONCA 542] recently held that an All Terrain Vehicle ("ATV") is an off-road vehicle that must be insured while on a roadway.
The Plaintiff was injured in an accident as he travelled by ATV on a public roadway from one part of his farm to another. In total, the Plaintiff intended to be on the public roadway for thirty seconds or less.
In the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff named the driver of the truck that hit him, the owner of the truck that struck him and his accident benefits provider.
The Plaintiff brought a motion to determine whether his action was statute barred. At issue was whether the Plaintiff had to have the ATV insured. If it had to be insured, Mr. Matheson's tort claim was barred and his accident benefits entitlement was limited.
While the motions Judge found that the ATV was a "self-propelled implement of husbandry" and therefore did not have to be insured, the Court of Appeal overturned this finding. In doing so, the Court of Appeal found that the ATV was an off road vehicle that had to be insured if it was being operated on a public road.
The Court of Appeal noted that Ontario Regulation 863 under the Off-Road Vehicles Act specifically classified the model of the ATV operated by the Plaintiff as an off-road vehicle. Further, section 15 prohibited a person from operating an off-road vehicle on land not occupied by the owner of the vehicle unless it was insured under an automobile policy. Similarly, Regulation 316/03 under the Highway Traffic Act required off-road vehicles to be insured when travelling on highways.
In rejecting that the ATV was a self-propelled implement of husbandry, the Court of Appeal noted that there had to be evidence that the ATV was manufactured, designed, redesigned, converted or reconstructed for specific use in farming. The Court of Appeal held, at best, that the ATV was designed and manufactured to be a multi-purpose vehicle which was widely used for farming. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal held that not all vehicles used for farming purposes are excluded from Ontario's compulsory automobile insurance regime.
The Appeal was allowed and the Plaintiff's tort claim was dismissed. The claim for accident benefits was limited because the ATV was not insured at the material time.
Lerners Insurance Defence Reference Library
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
