While walking my dog Marty this morning, I stepped off the sidewalk in front of my condo and nearly got taken out by a speeding food-delivery e-scooter. 

I live in downtown Toronto and I’ve watched electric kick-scooters multiply on our streets, bike lanes, and—too often—our sidewalks. In the last five years the growth has been undeniable. These compact “micromobility”^[1] devices move at surprising speed, ridden by commuters, couriers, and kids alike. The technology is here. The legal framework is trying to catch up.

I took a straight look at the law in Ontario, what’s actually permitted, how courts are starting to treat these cases, and what riders and pedestrians need to know when someone gets hurt. 

Legal and Regulatory Framework in Ontario

Ontario governs e-scooters through a provincial pilot^[2]. The province carved e-scooters out of the “motor vehicle” bucket for pilot purposes and set baseline rules, including minimum rider age, helmet use for minors, technical specs like power and weight limits, and a 24 km/h cap. Crucially, the pilot only bites where a municipality opts in. Otherwise, riding on public highways, sidewalks, paths, or parks isn’t allowed. The law is therefore a patchwork by design, and that patchwork matters when liability is assessed.

The City of Toronto’s Position (Opt-Out)

Considering the flurry of e-scooters I see every day in downtown Toronto, I was surprised to discover that Toronto has not opted into the provincial pilot. The City’s own materials are blunt: e-scooters are not permitted to be operated on public roads, sidewalks, or paths anywhere in Toronto, regardless of rider age. In practical terms, much of the riding you see downtown today is full-on unlawful in public space^[3], which will color any negligence analysis that follows an injury.

Insurance / Motor-Vehicle Status

Because compliant e-scooters are deemed not to be motor vehicles for the pilot, they’re outside Ontario’s auto insurance regime. That means when a scooter collides with a pedestrian—and no automobile is involved—there’s no automatic access to Statutory Accident Benefits. You’re in pure tort territory: negligence, causation, damages, and collectability. The analysis flips if a scooter is modified beyond the pilot’s specs (or is a different device altogether), but the default for legal, pilot-compliant e-scooters is no auto insurance backstop^[4].

Injury Data, Risk Patterns, and Public Health Evidence

Public-health sources paint a predictable picture. Rider injuries cluster around falls, loss of control, and collisions. Pedestrian harms include being struck by a moving scooter or tripping over a scooter left in the pedestrian realm. Helmet use is inconsistent, and intoxication is a factor in a non-trivial slice of events. Ontario-specific data are still maturing, but the risk profile is clear enough to inform policy and litigation strategy on both sides^[5].

The Recent Case: Mongabadi v. Aurora (Town)

A fresh Ontario decision shows how these cases can turn. In Mongabadi v. Aurora (Town), 2025 ONSC 2881^[6] the plaintiff fell from an electric kick-scooter after striking a pothole and sued the municipality for non-repair under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Town moved for summary judgment and won. The Court held there was no evidence the road was out of a reasonable state of repair and, even if there had been, the Town established statutory defences under s. 44(3), including compliance with the Minimum Maintenance Standards^[7]. The pothole measured roughly 4 cm on a Class 3 road, below the 8 cm trigger for repair. Notably, the Court did not need to decide whether riding an e-scooter was unlawful in that municipality at the time, because the claim failed on repair/defence grounds.

When Riders Injure Themselves

When a rider is hurt, the first question is whose negligence caused it. If a municipal road defect is alleged, the statute sets the frame. Municipalities must keep highways in a reasonable state of repair and can escape liability if they prove statutory defences like lack of knowledge or compliance with the Minimum Maintenance Standards^[8].

Ontario’s Court of Appeal in  Fordham v. Dutton-Dunwich (Municipality), 2014 ONCA 891^[9] has underscored that the benchmark is the ordinary, non-negligent road user, not the reckless one. In practice, a solo e-scooter crash on a Toronto street—where e-scooters are banned—starts with a headwind: the rider’s own unlawful use can invite a strong contributory negligence finding, and if the defect doesn’t meet the maintenance thresholds, the municipal claim dies on the vine, as in Mongabadi.

Injuries to Pedestrians

Let’s lip the lens. An e-scooter rider strikes a pedestrian. That was me (almost) this morning. That would have been a straightforward negligence claim against the rider. In Toronto, the rider’s use is unlawful from the outset, which a court will consider when assessing breach and causation. There’s no auto-insurance safety net unless an automobile is involved, so I would have had to look to the rider’s personal assets or a homeowner/tenant liability policy (coverage turns on policy wording). If a municipal condition also played a role, the reasonable state of repair analysis resurfaces, but the plaintiff must still meet the statute’s notice and proof hurdles while the municipality can invoke the Minimum Maintenance Standards^[10]. Where an automobile is involved—say, a car hits a pedestrian while avoiding an e-scooter—remember the reverse onus in HTA s. 193^[11] applies to injuries “by reason of a motor vehicle,” shifting the burden to the driver. It does not automatically apply to scooter–pedestrian collisions with no car. I wrote a Substack recently on the pedestrian reverse onus, “Proving No Negligence: The Reverse Onus in Pedestrian Knock-Downs”^[12].

Recurring Issues

I see three recurring issues showing up in e-scooter litigation.

First, illegality and contributory negligence. Where a city bans scooters, the rider’s unlawful operation is not a technicality. It bears directly on fault and damages and may sink a claim that would otherwise look sympathetic.

Second, the insurance gap. With no SABS and no compulsory liability coverage for riders, serious pedestrian injuries can become collection problems even when liability is clear.

Third, proof of non-repair. As Mongabadi illustrates, Municipal Act claims turn on evidence, and municipalities will lean on the Minimum Maintenance Standards and expert evidence to close the door before trial if the numbers don’t meet the regulation.

Where the Case Law is Heading

Ontario’s appellate road-maintenance jurisprudence already stresses two themes that map neatly onto scooter disputes, namely the ordinary careful user standard and the power of statutory defences.

In Fordham, the Court of Appeal reiterated that municipalities owe a duty geared to ordinary, prudent users, not to those traveling recklessly. In Morsi v. Fermar Paving Ltd., 2011 ONCA 577^[13], the Court upheld a finding that a reckless driver could be solely at fault despite alleged roadway imperfections. And in Deering v. Scugog (Township), 2012 ONCA 386^[14], the Court’s treatment of municipal non-repair clarifies how liability can be split—or not—when facts justify it.

Expect defence counsel in scooter matters to reach for these cases. Expect plaintiffs to distinguish them with facts about visibility, foreseeability, and compliance with standards.

Bottom Line

This morning, after my near-miss experience with a food courier, you would have caught me moralizing about e-scooters. But as I write this blog this evening, I’m here to be clear about the law. In Toronto, public riding remains prohibited, and across Ontario the pilot leaves big gaps—most of all in insurance.

If you represent an injured pedestrian, treat these like bare-knuckle tort cases with a potential collectability problem and a municipal-liability side-door if infrastructure truly failed.

If you represent a rider, assume illegality and contributory negligence will be front and centre, and be ready on standards, notice, and causation.

And if you’re a policymaker, the writing’s on the wall. Micromobility^[15] is here, but a durable legal architecture—uniform rules, thoughtful infrastructure, and a sensible liability/insurance regime—lags behind the reality on our sidewalks and streets.