ICBC Law

Last year I had the pleasure of being interviewed by the Georgia Straight with respect to ICBC’s obligation to fund massage therapy under their Part 7 Benefits plan.  This week I had a further interview with reporter Carlito Pablo addressing the BC Government’s Bill 52 which seeks to overhaul BC’s traffic ticketing dispute system.  You can view his article here.

For those of you visiting this site looking for further information on this topic you can click here to read my previous article where I share my concerns of the Government proposal which strips your right to a meaningful hearing when disputing a traffic violation “notice” and the increased insurance premiums that can accompany conviction.

For those of you visiting this site after reading Mr. Mulgrew’s article published in today’s Vancvouer Sun, welcome.

If you are looking for more information on my comments on Bills 44, 52 and the BC Government’s Justice Reform Initiative you can find my previous articles here and here and here.

The Australian Broadcast Corporation has recently been reporting on their Nation’s inquiry into historic sexual abuse involving religious organizations.

In the context of this story I had the pleasure to participate in a recent interview with ABC’s Anita Barraud discussing the circumstances when Canadian Courts will allow a damage claim to succeed not just against the perpetrator of the abuse but also against the organization itself under the doctrine of ‘vicarious liability‘.  An audio clip of my interview can be found here which aired in Australia earlier today:

bst_20120424_0848.mp3

For those of you visiting this site looking for more information regarding Canada’s application of vicarious liability in the context of civil damage claims for sexual abuse you can click here to access my archived post addressing this topic.

Earlier this week I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Carlito Pablo of the Georgia Straight who was writing an article on the recent BC Court of Appeal decision clarifying ICBC’s obligations to fund massage therapy treatments.  In short BC’s highest court found that massage therapy is a “mandatory” as opposed to a “discretionary” benefit and needs to be funded for accident victims where it is medically reasonable and necessary.

For those of you who are visiting this site looking for more information addressing this topic you can click here to read my previous post addressing this development and here for my archived posts addressing issues concerning ICBC’s no-fault benefits.

Earlier this week I had the pleasure of being briefly interviewed by Gordon Hoekstra of the Vancouver Sun who was authoring a story on waivers of liability for sports organizations.  In short the article emphasized the need for organizations to clearly bring liability waivers to the attention of those signing them otherwise there is risk that the waivers will be ineffective.

For those of you who are visiting this site looking for more information addressing this topic you can click the following link to access my archived posts discussing waivers of liability in BC Injury Claims.

I’d like to welcome all my new readers who are here following yesterday’s interview with Charles Adler of Corus Radio. You can click here to listen to my portion of the interview:  charles-adler-erik-magraken-interview-september-8-2011 (clip courtesy of CJOB 68 Winnipeg, Corus Radio Network)

Charles canvassed the case in Illinois involving children suing their mother for alleged emotional distress.  The conversation then turned to the thresh-hold for suing for psychiatric injuries in British Columbia and the “Loser Pays” system.

For more on these topics you can click here to read my archived posts addressing lawsuits for psychological harm, and here for my archived posts on BC’s Loser Pays System.

This afternoon I had the pleasure of being interviewed with Sean Leslie from CKNW.  The show focused on the recent bus collision in Richmond, BC which injured numerous passengers.

Thank you to all my new visitors.  If you are looking for more information regarding the topics discussed you can click on the following links to access my archived posts addressing no-fault benefits, unidentified motorist claims and the two roles of ICBC.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of being briefly interviewed by Simi Sara who was filling in for Mike Smyth on CKNW to discuss the issue of fault following collisions with pedestrians.  In short, when a pedestrian is struck motorists are not automatically at fault for the collision.  The law requires both pedestrians and motorists to be reasonable when using the roadway in looking out for each other.  The determination of fault in an injury lawsuit goes beyond looking at who had the right of way at the time of the accident.

For those of you who are visiting this site looking for more information following yesterday’s interview here is a link to my archived posts discussing fault for crashes involving jaywalkers and collisions involving pedestrians.  Thanks for visiting.

Earlier this week I was asked to participate in a radio interview with Dave Rutherford where we discussed the recent Supreme Court of Canada Decision Vancouver v. Ward.

You can click here for some background information.  In short the Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged that Canadian Judges can award financial damages if the Government violates an individuals rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  This decision will undoubtedly have a significant effect on the Canadian Legal landscape and I was pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this with Dave and his listeners in Alberta.

A quick correction is warranted as well.  Early in the interview I speculate that criminal lawyers could potentially ask for the remedy of damage awards in the course of a criminal trial but later in the interview I point out that this is in fact not a possibility.  The Supreme Court of Canada specifically notes that “Provincial criminal courts are not so empowered and thus do not have the power to award damages under s. 24(1).”  For individuals to seek damages for breach of Charter rights the appropriate way to put the matter before the Courts is through a conventional lawsuit.

You can click on the following link to listen to the interview in full:

bc-injury-law-dave-rutherford-interview.

As always, any feedback is welcome!

In what has proven a very popular topic, I’ve had the opportunity to discuss the implications of the Vancouver v. Ward case with News1130, The Dave Rutherford Show, and now with ILSTV.

I’d like to thank Julie Hawrishok of ILSCorp for providing me with the following clip: