Likely. It meets the broad definition of an "automobile" in the Insurance Act, and "vehicle" in the Traffic Safety Act.

The SCC in Tawa v. Co-op. Fire & Casualty Co in obiter suggested that tractors and farm equipment were automobiles within the definition of the Insurance Act:

18 It was suggested by appellant's counsel that if the word "automobile" in the endorsement were so broadly interpreted as to include the motor bike in question, it would result in the endorsement having no meaning, but I cannot give effect to this contention because I can envisage a great many self-propelled vehicles such as tractors and other farm equipment and vehicles used for road building and construction work which are automobiles within the meaning of s. 278(a) and yet could properly be said to be excluded as not being of the "private passenger ... type".

For more information, contact:

Amanda Kostek
CBM Lawyers
Edmonton