ICBC Law

BC Injury Law and ICBC Claims Blog

Erik MagrakenThis Blog is authored by British Columbia ICBC injury claims lawyer Erik Magraken. Erik is a partner with the British Columbia personal injury law-firm MacIsaac & Company. He restricts his practice exclusively to plaintiff-only personal injury claims with a particular emphasis on ICBC injury claims involving orthopaedic injuries and complex soft tissue injuries. Please visit often for the latest developments in matters concerning BC personal injury claims and ICBC claims

Erik Magraken does not work for and is not affiliated in any way with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). Please note that this blog is for information only and is not claim-specific legal advice.  Erik can only provide legal advice to clients. Please click here to arrange a free consultation.

Archive for November, 2018

$95,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Chronic Pain with Psychiatric Overlay

November 29th, 2018

Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic pain symptoms with psychiatric overlay caused by a series of collisions.

In today’s case (Sandhu v. Bates) the Plaintiff was injured in three collisions.  Fault was admitted by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff suffered injuries which developed into a myofascial pain syndrome.  She further developed somatic symptom disorders.  Her prognosis for full recovery was guarded.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $95,000 Madam Justice Winteringham provided the following reasons:

[137]     In summary, I make the following findings of fact respecting Mrs. Sandhu’s injuries:

a)    Mrs. Sandhu sustained moderate soft tissue injuries to her neck, lower back, buttock, right hip, right ankle, and right knee in the accidents.

b)    Rather than following a typical course of recovery after the accidents, Mrs. Sandhu experienced chronic low back pain affecting her buttock and pain down the right leg and associated numbness in the left buttock. Her chronic pain worsened in the first and second years following the accident and persisted at the time of trial.

c)     I accept Dr. Squire’s opinion that the diagnosis for her physical injuries is most consistent with myofascial pain syndrome of the lumbopelvic area and that the intermittent exacerbations are likely episodic acute muscle spasms and the right leg pain is likely referred pain from the myofascial pain syndrome. I also accept that she continues to experience intermittent neck pain.

d)    Dr. Joy, Dr. Anderson and Dr. Suhail all agree, and I find, that Mrs. Sandhu developed somatic symptom disorders. I note that though their diagnoses were not identical, Dr. Anderson and Dr. Suhail report that she meets the diagnostic criteria of somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, following the accidents.  In addition, I accept Dr. Anderson’s opinion that following the accidents, Mrs. Sandhu suffers from a generalized anxiety disorder.

e)    I find that, as Mrs. Sandhu’s psychological condition deteriorated, her ability to cope with pain was poor. Dr. Suhail’s opinion, with which I agree, was that “as here pain would trigger her anxiety, her subsequent psychological problems would reduce her ability to cope with pain. Whenever she would be stressed and anxious, her back pain would increase.”

f)      Dr. Joy, Dr. Anderson, Dr. Suhail, Dr. Chapman and Dr. Kashif all agree that Mrs. Sandhu suffered from anxiety after the accidents. They disagree about prognosis. I find that the first accident, and aggravated in the second and third, caused Mrs. Sandhu’s generalized anxiety disorder. The medical experts are all of the opinion that Mrs. Sandhu’s prognosis is guarded, particularly if she is unable to address her anxiety disorder. Dr. Suhail indicated some recent improvement and, with ongoing cognitive behavioral treatment, there is some reason for cautious optimism.

[153]     I have reviewed the cases referred to by the parties. On my review of Mrs. Sandhu’s cases, as her counsel admits, the injuries suffered in some of those cases were more serious than what I have found in the present case. Similarly, I have found the cases relied on by the Defendants involved Plaintiffs with lesser injuries than those I have found in Mrs. Sandhu’s case.

[154]     In all of the circumstances, and taking into account the authorities I have been referred to, I am satisfied that an award of $95,000 will appropriately compensate Mrs. Sandhu for her pain and suffering and loss of past and future enjoyment of life, for which the Defendants are responsible.


Pedestrian Found 80% At Fault For Being Struck While Jaywalking

November 25th, 2018

Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Court of Appeal upholding a trial judge’s assessment of fault for a pedestrian/vehicle collision.

In the recent case (Vandendorpel v. Evoy) the Plaintiff was struck while crossing a street.  He was at a light controlled intersection.  He pressed the button to activate the pedestrian walk signal but did not wait for the signal to come on.  Instead, he proceeded to cross the street while the signal for traffic in his direction was still red.  The Defendant was driving marginally over the speed limit and entered the intersection on a fresh yellow light striking the jaywalking pedestrian.   At trial the plaintiff was found 80% at fault for the crash.  In upholding this result the BC Court of Appeal agreed with the following reasonsing of the trial judge:

[53]      While both parties failed in their respective duties of care, I find Mr. Evoy’s failure was much less significant than Mr. Vandendorpel’s. His negligence consisted of driving at a speed that was over the posted limit, even if it was only minimally above that limit (i.e., approximately 55 km/hr in a 50 km/hr zone) and doing so when the lighting and road conditions were less than optimal. Compared to this conduct, Mr. Vandendorpel’s failures were more serious. He was dressed in dark clothing, including a dark hooded pullover that was zipped up to the top. None of his clothing had any light reflective qualities. Counsel for Mr. Vandendorpel submits that wearing dark clothing is not in and of itself contributory negligence. That submission is correct, but Mr. Vandendorpel’s failures are greater than simply the clothing he was wearing. He was also wearing headphones and listening to music and that reduced his ability to hear any on-coming traffic. He also had to cross a five-lane roadway that spanned approximately 18 metres. Although he depressed the pedestrian control device, he only waited a second or so before he attempted to cross the roadway. He carelessly did so even though the pedestrian control signal was still red and the traffic control signals were still green. Mr. Evoy’s vehicle approached the Intersection from the north. That is the direction Mr. Vandendorpel was initially walking. The headlights of Mr. Evoy’s vehicle would have been visible from at least 100 metres away. Mr. Vandendorpel must not have looked north on Sooke Road as he began to cross the roadway because he did not see the headlights of Mr. Evoy’s vehicle until it was approximately 30 metres away from him. That is, until the vehicle was just about to enter the Intersection. At that point, the pedestrian control signal was still red and the traffic control signal was yellow. Notwithstanding all of this, Mr. Vandendorpel chose to run across the path of the on-coming car instead of standing fast or retreating.

[54]      I remain of the firm opinion that Mr. Vandendorpel showed a reckless disregard for his duties as a pedestrian on the roadway and conclude that his degree of fault for the accident is greater than that of Mr. Evoy.

[55]      The case authorities counsel provided me with respect to apportionment have been helpful. Each party’s degree of responsibility is to be decided by assessing the risk their respective conduct created, the effect of that risk, and the extent to which each party departed from the standard of reasonable care (see: MacDonald (Litigation guardian of) v. Goertz, 2008 BCSC 394, aff’d 2009 BCCA 358).

[56]      In my view, the risk Mr. Vandendorpel created when he chose to walk and then run across Sooke Road, into the path of Mr. Evoy’s on-coming vehicle created a much more significant risk than Mr. Evoy driving at a speed marginally above the speed limit on a dark morning with a wet roadway. Moreover, I find the departure from the standard of care expected of Mr. Vandendorpel as a pedestrian was much more pronounced than the departure of Mr. Evoy from his duty of care as a driver of a motor vehicle.


Talking ICBC’s “Minor” Injuries With Kyla Lee on the Driving Law Podcast

November 23rd, 2018

This week I had the pleasure of discussing the ins and outs of the new ICBC “minor” injury laws and Tribunal system set to hit British Columbia for crashes after April 1, 2019 on Kyla Lee’s Driving Law podcast.

Thank you Kyla Lee for having me on.

You can listen to the full episode here –

Or subscribe to the Podcast on iTunes.


Jury Struck in Injury Claim With “Complex” Business Loss Element

November 22nd, 2018

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, striking a jury notice for a personal injury claim with a complex business loss component.

In today’s case (Forstved v. Kokabi) the Plaintiff was involved in a collision and sued for damages.  The Defendant elected to proceed to trial with a jury.  THe Plaintiff argued that the claim, particularly with its business loss component, was too complex for a jury.  The court agreed and struck the Defendant’s jury notice.  In doing so Master Dick provided the following reasons:

[50]         In this case, I agree with the plaintiff. The evidence in this case is sufficient to establish that this case will require a prolonged examination of documents or accounts and that the issues require a scientific or local investigation.

[51]         I must now look to whether the examination or investigation may conveniently be made with a jury. In considering this question, I acknowledge that a party’s right to trial by jury is entitled to great weight and ought not to be disturbed except in the clearest of cases.

[52]         In this case, I must consider if the jury can not only understand the evidence as it is presented and rebutted, but also retain it over 19 days and engage in a reasoned analysis at the end of the trial.

[53]         The plaintiff will be calling at least 23 witnesses, of whom 11 are experts. There will be lay witnesses, including the plaintiff’s accountant Mr. Moody. The accountant will be introducing many of the business and tax documents to support the plaintiff’s business arrangements. There will be at least 22 expert reports to be considered.

[54]         If I was just considering the number of experts, the expert’s use of terminology, the volume of medical evidence, and divergent opinions alone, that would not necessarily cause me to strike the jury in this case. What makes this case more difficult is the fact the plaintiff’s income and business losses are not straightforward. The jury will have to review and understand the plaintiff and his spouse’s income tax information as well as the financial statements from all of the corporations he owned. The jury will then have to analyze, understand, and interpret the documents to assess his income and business loss.

[55]         In this case, I accept that the issues of causation and quantification of damages will require prolonged examination of documents and scientific matters going to many issues over a protracted period. The difficulties for the trier of fact in dealing with this task was set out in Wallman v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2012 BCSC 1849 at para. 57:

. . . It may be necessary to retain fine detail from the examination in chief and cross-examination of many witnesses on multiple issues for weeks before those issues are traversed by defence witnesses. Considered on their own, most, but not all, of the expert reports in this case may be understood by a jury in light of the full examination in chief and cross-examination of the experts, but retention of that understanding over several weeks is likely to be so difficult, in my view, that fruitful analysis at the end of the day may be impossible.

[56]         I have considered all of the submissions made by counsel and the factors set out in paragraph 25 of these reasons. In this matter there is a significant dispute about the injuries sustained by the plaintiff and the impact on his life. After consideration of all of the above, I find that the jury will be significantly challenged over the 19 days of trial to retain, understand, and analyze the complex and conflicting evidence and reach factual and legal conclusions on the issues of causation and damages. As a result, I am satisfied that this matter cannot conveniently be heard by a jury.

[57]         I therefore will exercise my discretion to strike the jury notice and there will be an order that the trial of this case will be heard by judge alone.


$55,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic But Not Disabling Neck and Shoulder Injury

November 19th, 2018

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries sustained in a collision.

In today’s case (Young v. Shao) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2013 rear-end collision.  The Defendant admitted fault.  The crash resulted in chronic but non-disabling soft tissue injuries with a poor prognosis for full recovery.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $55,000 Madam Justice Adair provided the following reasons:

[81]        Based on my findings above, Ms. Young will continue to have chronic pain symptoms, particularly in her neck and shoulder. As a result of the injuries she sustained, her ability to participate in her most favourite past-time – dancing – was curtailed altogether for several months. When Ms. Young’s injuries had sufficiently healed to allow her to resume dancing, she could not engage in the activity to the same extent as before the accident. Dancing has always been a very important part of Ms. Young’s lifestyle. The effects of her injuries have also made Ms. Young’s ability to work – something else that is important to her and gives meaning to her life – more difficult. Although she has never missed work, she has had to work with pain, and will have to do so indefinitely.

[82]        On the other hand, I had no evidence that, as a result of the injuries, there was any impairment in Ms. Young’s family or social relationships. Indeed, only Ms. Young testified about how her life was affected. I did not hear from any friends, family members or co-workers. This was a significant feature of at least two of the cases cited by Mr. Vondette, which is not present here.

[83]        In view of my findings above, and taking into account the factors mentioned in Stapley (including Ms. Young’s age and stage of life) and the cases cited to me in argument, I conclude that a fair and reasonable award of non-pecuniary damages is $55,000.


Why BC’s “Minor” Injury / Tribunal Laws Are Vulnerable to a Charter Challenge

November 16th, 2018

British Columbia is not the first jurisdiction in Canada to take away the rights of the public in order to strengthen insurer profits.  This has been done in other Provinces and legal challenges to injury cap laws have withheld constitutional challenge.  BC, however, has gone further than simply capping damages and combined these with a system that forces ‘prescribed’ injury victims away from Court and into a Civil Tribunal.  This combination leaves BC’s recent legislation vulnerable to legal challenge.

In the simplest of terms, when you are injured in a crash and sue the at fault motorist for your losses ICBC, BC’s government controlled monopoly auto insurer, can allege your injuries are “minor”.  When they do so, even if the allegation is frivolous, your claim gets steered out of Court and into a Civil Tribunal.   From there the Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide if your injury is, in fact, “minor” (a term which encompasses many serious injuries).  BC requires the injured party to bear the burden of proving the injury is not minor.  If you can’t clear this hurdle you can’t go to Court unless the Tribunal also decides there is “a substantial likelihood that damages will exceed the tribunal limit“ (or in other very limited circumstances).

BC created a two tiered justice system.  One for ‘minor‘ injury claimants and one for others.  If you don’t have a “minor” injury you can choose where you wish to sue.  If you have an alleged “minor” injury you have no choice.  You have to go to the Tribunal and clear their barriers before being given permission to go to Court.

The gatekeeping function of who is forced into the Tribunal is based solely on the physical and mental characteristics of the claimant.

If you have something as benign as a hairline fracture in your finger you can go to court. If you have PTSD, a concussion, depression or another psychiatric condition you get funnelled to the Tribunal.  Why is this a problem?  Section 15 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects individuals from discrimination based on “mental or physical disability“.

Section 15 of the Charter reads as follows (key words emphasised by me)

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

BC’s system violates the plain language of this constitutional protection.   The benefit of the law is going to Court.  The barrier is a mental or physical disability used as the sole criteria to determine whose rights are taken away.

If a Court finds s. 15 is violated BC will have to prove this discrimination “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”  It stretches the imagination on how taking away the public’s judicial rights based on protected grounds in order to save an insurer money meets this test.

There can little doubt that the Tribunal system is designed to be unfair and affords lesser justice to litigants compared to the BC Supreme Court –

  • BC’s Attorney General admitted during debate that they designed this system to discourage people from having a lawyer and wanting lay litigants attending the Tribunal against an insurance “specialist“.
  • The Government carved themselves out of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction making them immune from lawsuits before it.
  • The Tribunal limits the expert evidence litigants can use and further limits the cost recovery available for hiring experts.
  • Tribunal cases have extremely curtailed appellate rights.  These are limited to judicial review under the strictest standards compared to the more robust rights a litigant would have after a BC Supreme Court trial.
  • Tribunal adjudicators, unlike BC Supreme Court Justices, are not appointed by the Federal Government and do not enjoy the job security Justices do.
  • The Tribunal itself is designed by the BC Government, the same entity that controls ICBC and has been taking their profits for years.
  • Litigants before the Tribunal are afforded fewer rights in the realm of civil procedure.

This is not a case of Government creating a separate but equal route to justice for people with modest claims. This is not a case of Government giving people a choice between different forums.   This is a case of Government using Charter protected grounds to force individuals with prescribed mental and physical injuries to overcome further obstacles before being allowed access to Court.

BC’s new laws come into force on April 1, 2019.  A Charter challenge will be right on its heels.


“Minor” Injury Victims Limited To Single Expert and Curtailed Budget By Civil Resolution Tribunal

November 15th, 2018

This week the BC Government published more details surrounding their new legal regime for collision victims ICBC alleges to have ‘minor’ injuries.  In short it limits expert witness rights and limits fee recovery for the expenses of hiring experts.

The Accident Claims Regulation provides as follows:

– allows “on the request of a party or on the tribunal’s own initiative” for the tribunal to “appoint an expert to conduct an independent medical examination with respect to a person’s injuries related to an accident claim

– the scope of the examination and report that follows can comment on “the nature and extent of the person’s injuries; the person’s diagnosis; the person’s condition at the time of the independent medical examination; the person’s prognosis.”

– the claimant is restricted, as a default position to “introduce expert evidence from one expert” separate from any expert the Tribunal chooses for an independent medical examination.

– the claimant can ask the tribunal for permission to have up to two additional experts “if the tribunal considers that the introduction of additional evidence is reasonably necessary and proportionate to the accident claim”.

– the following restrictions on costs recovery, both for expert witnesses and overall, are set out

(i) $2 000 is the limit prescribed for expenses and charges payable in
relation to each expert, including any expenses and charges payable
in relation to reports or other evidence prepared by each expert
providing expert evidence, and
(ii) $5 000 is the total limit prescribed for all recoverable fees, expenses
and charges, including any expenses and charges payable under
subparagraph

Just to break down how this work.  If you are injured in a crash and ICBC alleges you have a ‘minor’ injury (whether your injury is minor or not) you will have to go to the Tribunal.   The Tribunal will have to decide if your injury is minor.  If not you are free to go to Court.  If it is deemed ‘minor’ you will remain stuck in the Tribunal for quantum to be decided unless you persuade the Tribunal that there is “a substantial likelihood that damages will exceed the tribunal limit“.  These barriers must be overcome with a limited budget and experts because as a default you will be limited to one expert and can only recovery $2,000 for that expert’s services even if more is charged.


British Columbia’s “Minor” Injury Law Says One Year Actually Means Forever

November 14th, 2018

Yes, you read that right.  12 months is 1 year but according to new Laws and Regulations passed by British Columbia 12 months actually means forever.

What am I talking about?  Earlier this year the BC Government passed a law capping non-pecuniary damages for what they call ‘minor’ injuries.  The law states that if the injuries cause “serious impairment“, however, that they are no longer minor and not subject to the cap.  Seems fair enough right?  Read on.

To meet the definition of ‘serious impairment‘ in section 101(1) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act the injury must not “be resolved within 12 months” and meet whatever further criteria the government dog-piles on via Regulation.

Last week the Government published their Regulations which added the requirement in addition to the 12 month duration required in the Act the injury must basically be disabling to lead to ‘serious impairment‘.  Then, they went further and said the 12 month injury also has to be permanent with a requirement that “the impairment is not expected to improve substantially”.

So when the Government tells you that injuries that last more than 12 months are not subject to the cap they are lying.  They in fact require the injuries to be disabling and permanent to shed the restrictions of the cap.

This inconsistency between the Act and Regulations appears illogical, incoherent and contrary to the stated intention of capping minor injuries.  A situation that opens the harsh Regulation to judicial challenge.  Probably one of many to come by British Columbians impacted by these new laws in 2019.


Understanding ICBC’s “Minor Injuries” For Crashes After April 1, 2019

November 11th, 2018

This week the BC Government released their regulations setting out the framework for ICBC’s ‘minor injury’ scheme which will be in force for people involved in BC collisions after April 1, 2019.

First and foremost it should be emphasized that the term ‘minor injury’ is misleading.  It is a political term used to make the public ok with having your rights stripped.  In short many injuries that no-one should consider minor (such as brain injuries) are caught in this definition.  With the regulations now in force, however, British Columbians now have a better understanding of what the future will hold.  Here is the rundown.

Section 103 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act notes that everyone in a BC crash after April 1, 2019 that suffers ‘minor’ injuries have their non-pecuniary damages capped at an amount set by regulation.  The regulations released last week set the cap at $5,500.

The term “minor injury” is defined in section 101 of the Act as follows:

a physical or mental injury, whether or not chronic, that

(a)subject to subsection (2), does not result in a serious impairment or a permanent serious disfigurement of the claimant, and

(b)is one of the following: 

(i)an abrasion, a contusion, a laceration, a sprain or a strain; 

(ii)a pain syndrome;

(iii)a psychological or psychiatric condition; 

(iv)a prescribed injury or an injury in a prescribed type or class of injury;

The Regulations went on to expand this list with the following ‘prescribed’ injuries

a. a concussion that does not result in an incapacity

b. A TMJ disorder

c. a WAD injury

A TMJ disorder was defined to mean “an injury that involves or surrounds the tempomandibular joint.“.

A WAD injury was defined to mean “a whiplash associated disorder other than one that exhibits one or both of the following:

(a) decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes, deep tendon weakness or sensory deficits, or other demonstrable and clinically relevant neurological symptoms;

(b) a fracture or dislocation of the spine”

Sprain was defined to mean “an injury to one or more ligaments unless all the fibres of at least one of the injured ligaments are torn“.

Strain was defined to mean “an injury to one or more muscles unless all the fibres of at least one of the injured muscles are torn“.

Psychological or Psychiatric Condition is defined as follows:

a clinical condition that

(a) is of a psychological or psychiatric nature, and

(b) does not result in an incapacity

The word “incapacity” was defined as well with the Regulations noting as follows:

in relation to a claimant, means a mental or physical incapacity that

(a) is not resolved within 16 weeks after the date the incapacity arises, and

(b) is the primary cause of a substantial inability of the claimant to perform

(i) essential tasks of the claimant’s regular employment, occupation or profession, despite reasonable efforts to accommodate the claimant’s incapacity and the claimant’s reasonable efforts to use the accomodation to allow the claimant to continue the claimant’s employment, occupation or profession.

(ii) the essential tasks of the claimants training or education in a program or course that the claimant was enrolled in or had been accepted for enrollment in at the time of the accident, despite reasonable efforts to accommodate the claimant’s incapacity and the claimant’s reasonable efforts to use the accomodation to allow the claimant to continue the claimant’s training or education, or

(iii) the claimant’s activities of daily living.

So, if you have any of the above “minor injuries” you are facing capped non-pecuniary damages.  A concussion by default is minor but if it does result in the above definition of ‘incapacity’ it will not be subject to the cap.  The same goes for psychological or psychiatric conditions.

A “minor” injury can also get around the cap if it results in  “serious impairment or a permanent serious disfigurement“.

These terms have also been defined as follows:

“permanent serious disfigurement”, in relation to a claimant, means a permanent disfigurement that, having regard to any prescribed criteria, significantly detracts from the claimant’s physical appearance;

“serious impairment”, in relation to a claimant, means a physical or mental impairment that

(a)is not resolved within 12 months, or another prescribed period, if any, after the date of an accident, and

(b)meets prescribed criteria.

The “prescribed criteria” set out in the regulations basically mirror the test for ‘incapacity’ with the regulations stating as follows:

The claimant’s physical or mental impairment must meet the following  prescribed criteria:

(a) the impairment results in a substantial inability of the claimant to perform

(i) the essential tasks of the claimant’s regular employment, occupation or profession, despite reasonable efforts to accommodate the claimant’s incapacity and the claimant’s reasonable efforts to use the accomodation to allow the claimant to continue the claimant’s employment, occupation or profession,

(ii) the essential tasks of the claimants training or education in a program or course that the claimant was enrolled in or had been accepted for enrollment in at the time of the accident, despite reasonable efforts to accommodate the claimant’s incapacity and the claimant’s reasonable efforts to use the accomodation to allow the claimant to continue the claimant’s training or education, or

(iii) the claimant’s activities of daily living.

(b) the impairment is primarily caused by the accident and is ongoing since the accident;

(c) the impairment is not expected to improve substantially.

You will see from this combination the injury not only has to last more than 12 months as set out in the Act but the Regulations went on to basically require the injury to be permanent to not be considered minor.

Even if a ‘minor’ injury goes on to meet the test for no longer being considered minor ICBC has the right to argue that it is still minor if you did not follow their treatment protocols with s. 101(2)(3)(4) of the Act holding as follows

(2)Subject to subsection (3) and the regulations, an injury that, at the time of the accident or when it first manifested, was an injury within the definition of “minor injury” in subsection (1) is deemed to be a minor injury if

(a)the claimant, without reasonable excuse, fails to seek a diagnosis or comply with treatment in accordance with a diagnostic and treatment protocol prescribed for the injury, and

(b)the injury

(i)results in a serious impairment or a permanent serious disfigurement of the claimant, or

(ii)develops into an injury other than an injury within the definition of “minor injury” in subsection (1).

(3)An injury is not deemed, under subsection (2), to be a minor injury if the claimant establishes that either of the circumstances referred to in subsection (2) (b) would have resulted even if the claimant had sought a diagnosis and complied with treatment in accordance with a diagnostic and treatment protocol prescribed for the injury.

(4)For the purposes of this Part, a minor injury includes a symptom or a condition associated with the injury whether or not the symptom or condition resolves within 12 months, or another prescribed period, if any, after the date of an accident.

And who has the burden of proving an injury is minor?  Not ICBC.  You must prove your injury is not minor if ICBC suggests otherwise with the regulations noting “In civil proceedings relating to an injury, the burden of proof that the injury is not a minor injury is on the party making the allegation that it is not a minor injury“.


BC Government’s ICBC Law Labels Collision Brain Injuries “Minor”

November 9th, 2018

Earlier this year the BC Government called ICBC a ‘dumpster fire’.  They suggested drastic overhaul was needed to keep the Crown insurer alive and well.  In order to let them keep their monopoly the rights of British Columbians injured through careless drivers would need to be stripped.

But don’t worry, the Government assured us, only those who suffer ‘minor’ injuries will have their rights reduced.  All who watch Government know, however, that the Devil’s in the details.  Today those details came out and their assurances were misleading.  Many major injuries are caught in their ‘minor’ injury dragnet.

In an April 2, 2018 press release the Government assured the public “brain injuries” would not be labeled as minor.  Today Regulations were published that flat out state otherwise.

These Insurance (Vehicle) Regulations label a “concussion” as a “minor injury“.  A concussion is a brain injury.  There is no grey here.  The Government lied.

This brain injury inclusion is in addition to those injuries they previously told us are minor including

  • Chronic Depression
  • Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  • Conversion Disorders
  • Chronic Pain Syndromes
  • Chronic physical injuries
  • Disabling physical injuries
  • All psychological “conditions”
  • All psychiatric “conditions”

There is already press out suggesting that “if psychological injuries, including minor concussions, last longer than four months, the caps no longer apply. If any physical injury lasts longer than 12 months, in those cases caps will not exist.”  This is not accurate.  The regulations create a far more onerous workaround to this ‘minor’ injury cap than simply having symptoms persist for more than 4 or 12 months respectively.  I will tackle that in a subsequent article. For now, I just wanted to call a spade a spade.  The government lied.  British Columbians’ rights have been drastically stripped for insurance company profit.