In a recent decision, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench was tasked with determining whether an uninsured private electric scooter fits under the definition an automobile for the purposes of Section B coverage under the other vehicle’s policy.
In Le Prieur v Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2026 ABKB 452, Wanke J. ruled that an electric scooter constitutes an “automobile” under the Alberta Insurance Act, excluding a rider injured in a collision with a vehicle from Section B benefits under the other vehicle’s insurance policy.
FACTS
On October 18, 2024, Mr. Le Prieur was riding his personal electric scooter in downtown Edmonton along a bike lane when he collided with a minivan making a right-hand turn across the bike lane into an alleyway.
The minivan was insured with the respondent, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (“Aviva”). Automobile insurance policies in Alberta are required to include limited no-fault benefits under Section B. These Section B benefits extend to people struck by a motor vehicle who were not the occupant of an automobile at the time of the accident.
Mr. Le Prieur made a claim as an insured person under Section B of the minivan’s insurance policy, which Aviva denied.
Thus, the issue before the Court was the definition of “automobile”. If the electric scooter was not found to be an automobile, Mr. Le Prieur would be an insured person under the minivan’s Section B benefits. If the electric scooter was found to be an automobile, Mr. Le Prieur would not be covered by the Section B benefits.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Le Prieur took the position that the term “automobile” should be interpreted narrowly and should only include vehicles registrable and insurable, which would exclude electric scooters. He argued that the legislature intended Section B coverage for a broad group of people, including pedestrians, who are injured in motor vehicle accidents and would not be covered by their own insurance policies. Otherwise, Mr. Le Prieur argued there would be an undesirable insurance gap.
Aviva’s position was that the plain reading of the definition of “automobile” under the Insurance Act should apply, which would include the electric scooter as a “self-propelled vehicle”. Both parties agreed that the electric scooter was self-propelled but did not address the meaning of “vehicle” which remains undefined in the Insurance Act.
The Court confirmed that the definition of “automobile” under the Insurance Act applied to the insurance policy. This was a similar finding to that of the Supreme Court of Canada who earlier found that a “motor cycle” was a “self-propelled vehicle” (Twa v Co-operative Fire & Casualty Co, 1973 CanLII 181, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 97)
The Court relied on the definition of “vehicle” in the Traffic Safety Act which provides that a vehicle is “a device in, on or by which a person or thing may be transported or drawn on a highway but does not include a mobility aid”. Further, the Court relied on the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of the word “vehicle” meaning a structure on wheels for carrying persons or goods (Municipal District of Sugar City v Bennett & White (Calgary) Ltd, 1950 CanLII 35 , [1950] S.C.R. 450).
Under either of those definitions, the electric scooter qualified as a vehicle and the insurance policy was clear and unambiguous as to the extent that Section B benefits apply. Justice Wanke stated that, “there is no evidence before me that the legislature intended Section B coverage to extend to riders in these circumstances” (para. 30). There was a clear exclusion of Section B benefits for occupants of automobiles.
The Court noted that Mr. Le Prieur had commenced a separate tort claim against the defendant driver and the vehicle owner, and the determination of whether the e-scooter was an “automobile” was irrelevant for purposes of that claim.
The Court left it in the legislature’s hands to determine if new definitions are needed due to the proliferation of powered vehicles, micro-mobility devices and powered mobility aids in recent years.
TAKEAWAYS
This decision makes it clear Section B benefits on a vehicle’s insurance policy does not cover occupants of automobiles and that an uninsured electric scooter was captured by the definition of “automobile”.
Alberta insurers and insurance defence counsel should keep an eye out to see if this case is appealed or if the legislature will respond by altering the statutory definitions of “automobile” or “vehicle” under the Insurance Act or Traffic Safety Act due to the increasing use of mobility devices and powered vehicles.