Matheson et al. v. Lewis et al.
[Indexed as: Matheson v. Lewis]
Ontario Reports
Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
Pedlar J.
April 24, 2013
115 O.R. (3d) 220 | 2013 ONSC 2441
Case Summary
Insurance — Automobile insurance — Interpretation and construction — Insured using all-terrain vehicle ("ATV") on his farm and not insuring it under motor vehicle insurance policy — Insured driving ATV on public road for approximately 30 seconds on one occasion to check on his sheep — Insured struck from behind by another vehicle and suffering catastrophic injuries — ATVs an integral part of virtually all full-time farming operations — ATV being "self-propelled implement of husbandry" and therefore exempted from definition of motor vehicle under Highway Traffic Act and from compulsory insurance regime — Insured not barred by s. 267.6(1) of Insurance Act from suing insurer and at-fault driver for damages — Insured's claim for statutory accident benefits not foreclosed by s. 30(1)(a) of Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s. 267.6(1) — Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Accidents on or after November 1, 1996, O. Reg. 403/96, s. 30(1)(a).
The plaintiff was a full-time farmer. He used an all-terrain vehicle in his farming operations and did not insure it under a motor vehicle insurance policy. On one occasion, he drove the ATV for approximately 30 seconds on a public road, taking a shortcut to check on his sheep, and was struck from behind by another vehicle. He suffered catastrophic injuries. His claim for statutory accident benefits was denied. He sued the driver of the at-fault vehicle and the insurer. The defendants moved for determination before trial of the following questions of law: whether the action was statute-barred by s. 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act, and whether the plaintiff's claim for statutory accident benefits was foreclosed by s. 30(1) (a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, because the ATV was not insured under a motor vehicle insurance policy at the time of the accident.
Held, the motion should be dismissed.
The evidence established that ATVs are now an integral part of virtually all full-time farming operations. The plaintiff's ATV was a "self-propelled implement [page221] of husbandry" as defined in s. 1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 and was therefore exempted from the definition of motor vehicle under that Act and from the compulsory insurance regime. Accordingly, the action was not barred by s. 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act, and the plaintiff's claim for statutory accident benefits was not foreclosed by s. 30(1) (a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
Neto v. Liberatore, [2005] O.J. No. 4031, [2005] O.T.C. 817, 33 C.C.L.I. (4th) 26, [2005] I.L.R. I-4447, 2005 33787, 142 A.C.W.S. (3d) 673 (S.C.J.); R. v. Van Berlo, [2010] O.J. No. 1307, 2010 ONCA 242, 94 M.V.R. (5th) 11, 260 O.A.C. 291, consd
Other cases referred to
Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re) (1998), 1998 837 (SCC), 36 O.R. (3d) 418, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, [1998] S.C.J. No. 2, 154 D.L.R. (4th) 193, 221 N.R. 241, J.E. 98-201, 106 O.A.C. 1, 50 C.B.R. (3d) 163, 33 C.C.E.L. (2d) 173, 98 CLLC Â210-006, 1998 837
Statutes referred to
Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.25 [as am.], s. 2 [as am.], (1) [as am.]
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, ss. 1 [as am.], 191.8(1), (5)
Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, ss. 1 [as am.], (1) [as am.], 224(1), 267.6(1), 268(2)
Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.11, s. 10 [rep. by S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sch. F, ss. 134]
Off-Road Vehicles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.4, ss. 1, 2(1), (2) [as am.], 15 [as am.], (1), (9)
Rules and regulations referred to
O. Reg. 316/03 (Highway Traffic Act) [as am.], s. 17
R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 863 (Off-Road Vehicles Act), ss. 1, 2(1), 3, paras. 1.1, 3, ss. 15(1), (9)
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rule 21.01(1)
Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Accidents on or after November 1, 1996, O. Reg. 403/96, ss. 4 [as am.], 12 [as am.], 13, 14 [as am.], 20 [as am.], 21 [as am.], 22, 23, 24 [as am.], 25 [as am.], 26, 27-29 [as am.], 30(1) (a)
Authorities referred to
Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Farm Guide: Farm Equipment on the Highway (Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario)
MOTION for the determination of questions of law.
Thomas C. Barber, for plaintiffs
Paul Muirhead, for defendant Gary Wayne Lewis and GMAC Leasco Limited.
Stephen S. Appotive, for defendant Lanark Mutual Insurance Company.
[The remainder of the judgment paragraphs continue exactly as in the original text, from paragraph [1] through paragraph [62], concluding with:]
Motion dismissed.
End of Document