I understand where you're both coming from. It is indeed technically an "e-bike", with a drivetrain that allows for human powered movement.

However, Stokell believes that they should not be considered e-bikes, primarily due to definitions in legislation. I don't see any such direct mention of the weeding out of e-bike scooters though, simply that they were going to be required to have fully functional drivetrains rather than aesthetic ones:

E-bikes, like conventional bikes, are designed to be propelled primarily by muscular power. We are aware of some scooters that have had non-operational pedals attached for aesthetic purposes, in an attempt to circumvent the licensing and insurance requirements for scooters

Depending on how they take that, it could mean a revision for product coming out, or simply that police might start requiring you to prove that it operates. The latter would mean very little.

Based upon basic criteria, e-bike scooters have a drivetrain, a legal weight limit, and an electric motor, which fits them in under law. Despite the abstract definitions provided in legal speak, typically those are the only solidly defined definitions which place the vehicle in the class. However, once you add 140+lbs of weight, reduce the gyroscopic input of the wheels at low speed, introduce a drivetrain which isn't typically fully rounded out and a crankset which is too wide for comfort, the bicycle experience has been quite greatly diminished. As Digikid says, he doesn't pedal his. Thats not particularily surprising.

So yes, its defined as one. But in reality, its an exceptionally poor bicycle.
Not everyone lives in Ontario either, and for the rest of Canada, most of us have our own independent regulations.