ICBC Law

If a person is injured by the actions of an uninsured motorist in BC they can seek compensation directly from ICBC under section 20 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.

There are certain limitations to section 20 claims and one of these was that ICBC could deduct Workers Compensation Benefits.  This changed by the new section 106 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation which came into force on June 1, 2007.  The new regulation changed the definition of an ‘insured claim‘ that ICBC could deduct as follows:

106 (1)  In this section, “insured claim” means any benefit, compensation similar to benefits, right to indemnity or claim to indemnity accruing to a person entitled to benefits, compensation or indemnity or to the personal representative or guardian of the person, and includes a benefit, compensation, right or claim

(a) under the Workers Compensation Act or a similar law or plan of another jurisdiction, unless

(i)  the insured elects not to claim compensation under section 10 (2) of the Workers Compensation Act and the insured is not entitled to compensation under section 10 (5) of that Act, or

(ii)  the Workers Compensation Board pursues its right of subrogation under section 10 (6) of the Workers Compensation Act

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing whether ICBC could deduct WCB benefits paid when a crash occurred prior to June 1, 2007 but the uninsured claim against ICBC was still on-going after the new Regulation came into force.  In short the Court held that the date of the crash itself does not decide the issue, rather the date that the section 20 claim against ICBC is crystallized does.

In this week’s case (Hicks v. Bieberbach Estate) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 collision.  The opposing motorist was operating a stolen vehicle and was killed in the collision.  Motorists in stolen vehicles are deemed to be uninsured motorists by ICBC.  The Plaintiff initially obtained some compensation from WCB.  The Plaintiff then re-elected his route of compensation and brought a tort claim (apparently with WCB’s approval) against the uninsured motorist’s estate.

ICBC took the position that all the funds paid by WCB were non-recoverable as the crash happened prior to June 1, 2007.  Madam Justice Adair disagreed and found that since the CL-42 (the statutory declaration claimiants need to sign to seek section 20 benefits from ICBC) was not signed until after June 1, 2007 the new regulation applied and ICBC could not deduct the WCB payments from their section 20 obligations.  In reaching this decision the Court provided the following reasons:

[44]         A claimant who is injured by an insured driver and who wishes to make an application to ICBC for damages must do so in the prescribed form:  s. 20(2).  The form prescribed is a statutory declaration, where an applicant must verify facts as if under oath or on affirmation.  I do not see anything in s. 20 to suggest that ICBC “may pay” without having fundamental facts relevant to the claimant’s claim verified by solemn declaration,  as prescribed by the legislation.  On the contrary, the clear implication of s. 20(9) is that it is necessary for a claimant to submit a declaration in Form CL-42 before ICBC “may” pay.  The significance of the word “may pay” (rather than “must pay”) is that, even when a claimant has complied with s. 20 and the regulations, ICBC is notobligated to pay:  see Buxton v. Tang, at para. 7.

[45]         In my view, ICBC’s correspondence dated February 7, 2007, indicates that ICBC requires plaintiff’s counsel to comply with the service and default requirements of s. 20 (see in particular ss. 20(5)(b), (6) and (7)), and, more generally, indicates that ICBC expected Roy Hicks to comply with the section and the regulations before any amount would be paid to him.  This is entirely consistent with s. 20(9).  One of the requirements was that Mr. Hicks complete and submit a CL-42.  Unlike s. 24 of the Act, which requires a claimant to give ICBC notice of a claim within 6 months after the accident but does not specify any form in which the notice must be given, s. 20 specifies the form of notice of a claim, but does not fix a deadline…

[52]         In my opinion, in this case and reading s. 20 as a whole, ICBC was not in a position where it at least “may” pay, until Roy Hicks submitted his CL-42 statutory declaration.  That was the final step Mr. Hicks needed to complete (since service of the writ and defence of the claim by ICBC had been addressed in the fall of 2007) as claimant.  Since the CL-42 statutory declaration was submitted in February 2008, s. 106 of the New Regulation applies…

[54]         In summary, the question posed on the special case is:

Does the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia have the legal authority to deduct Workers’ Compensation Board benefits paid to the Plaintiff from any amount to be paid to the Plaintiff for damages, as a result of settlement or judgment in this matter, taking into account Section 20 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231 and regulation 106 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act Regulations, or the predecessor to these sections which were repealed on June 1, 2007?

My answer is no.  Section 106 of the New Regulation applies in respect of the plaintiff’s claim.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, finding that the new Civil Rules give the BC Supreme Court the power to award lump sum costs without the need for taxation.  Madam Justice Adair held that this power was not available under the former rules absent party consent.

In today’s case (Madock v. Grauer) the Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for damages.  At trial one of the Defendant’s was ordered to pay $5,000 in damages.  The parties could not agree on the cost consequences that followed and applied to the trial judge to address this issue.   Madam Justice Adair ultimately held that the Plaintiff was entitled to costs and fixed these at $11,000.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons about the ability of trial judges to award lump sum costs:

[47]         Under Rule 14-1(15), “The court may award costs (a) of a proceeding . . . and in awarding those costs the court may fix the amount of costs, including the amount of disbursements.”  This Rule is to be contrasted with its counterpart in the old Rules, Rule 57(13), which provided, and I am going to emphasize the first few words:

With the consent of the parties, the court may fix a lump sum as the costs of the whole proceeding, either inclusive or exclusive of disbursements and expenses.

A key change in the new Rule is that consent of the parties is no longer necessary, before the court can fix lump sum costs.

The Court went on to use the new concept of ‘proportionality‘ and found that this was an appropriate case to order lump sum costs.  Madam Justice Adair provided the following reasons:

[49]         I have concluded that these siblings and Mr. Grauer would not be well-served by having a forum – namely, taxation of costs – in which they can continue to litigate over the late Mr. McKenzie’s estate.  Moreover, prolonging litigation among these parties is, in my opinion, out of all proportion to the amount involved, the importance of the issues in dispute and the complexity of the proceeding.  Rather, it is now time for finality.  The costs consequent on my judgment following the trial must also be in some rational proportion to the amount ultimately recovered, which was $5,000.  The costs – indeed the double costs – that the plaintiffs suggest in their submissions they should be awarded are out of all proportion to what would be reasonable.

[50]         I have therefore concluded that, in this case, orders should be made for lump sum costs under Rule 14-1(15)

I’ve written numerous times about the so-called “Low Velocity Impact Defence” to tort claims and that is has been soundly rejected by the BC Supreme Court.  Reasons for judgement were published this week on the BC Supreme Court website further criticizing the LVI Defence.

In this week’s case (Lee v. Hawari) the Plaintiff was injured in 2006 motor vehicle collision.  The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff could not have been injured because this was a low velocity crash.  Madam Justice Adair disagreed and found that the Plaintiff suffered “mild to moderate soft-tissue injuries to her neck, shoulder (including the right trapezius strain) and back, and she continues to suffer some symptoms, including pain, from those injuries as of trial“.  The Court went on to award the Plaintiff $21,000 for her non-pecuniary damages.  Prior to doing so Madam Justice Adair provided the following sound criticism of the LVI defence:

[53] Mr. Hawari appears to suggest that because this was a low velocity collision, Ms. Lee could not have suffered any injury, or could only have suffered minor injuries.  However, this does not follow, either as a matter of logic or legal principle,  as Mr. Justice Thackray reminded litigants (and their insurers) in Gordon v. Palmer (1993), 78 B.C.L.R. (2d) 236 (S.C.), at para. 4 to 6.  See also Jackman v. All Season Labour Supplies Ltd., 2006 BCSC 2053, at paras 12 to 13, and Ceraldi v. Dathie, 2008 BCSC 1812, at para. 27.  The presence and extent of injuries are to be determined on the basis of evidence given in court.

Published reasons such as these aimed at insurance companies behind the defendants are a welcome reminder that deciding whether compensable injuries were sustained in a collision should be determined by viewing all of the evidence, not by artificial standards giving undue focus to vehicle repair costs.

After a collision the parties involved often speak with each other inquiring whether they’re OK, exchanging insurance information and even discussing whose at fault.  Admissions made in these conversations can be used in Court against the party making the admission and such evidence can prove fatal in a personal injury lawsuit as was demonstrated in reasons for judgement released today by the BC Supreme Court.

In today’s case (Barrie v. Marshall) the Plaintiff motorcyclist rear-ended a vehicle driven by the Defendant.  The Plaintiff sued arguing that the Defendant was at fault claiming that she had suddenly and unexpectedly stopped her vehicle in front of the Plaintiff leaving him inadequate time to stop.  The Defendant disagreed and gave evidence that she activated her turn signal and was slowing to make a right hand turn when she was rear-ended.

The Court ultimately accepted the Defendant’s version of events over the Plaintiff’s and dismissed the personal injury lawsuit.  In reaching this decision the Court placed a great deal of weight in admissions the Defendant made in the aftermath of the collision.  Madam Justice Adair set out the following in demonstrating the negative impact out of court ‘admissions’ can have in a lawsuit:

[21]         Two members of the Abbotsford Police, Constables Davidson and Zawadsky, attended at the scene.  Both testified at trial.  They arrived after the ambulance, and found Mr. Barrie’s motorcycle in the intersection and Ms. Marshall’s car on the shoulder of Marshall Road.  The gist of the officers’ evidence is that they carried out a brief investigation, spoke to both Mr. Barrie and Ms. Marshall, and concluded that the collision was Mr. Barrie’s fault.  This conclusion was based at least in part on a statement that Constable Zawadsky testified Mr. Barrie made to him (parts of which Constable Davidson testified he overheard) to the effect that he (Mr. Barrie) was not paying attention and ran into the back of Ms. Marshall’s car.  Mr. Barrie denies making any such a statement to anyone, although he did testify that he told Ms. Marshall the accident was probably his fault.

[22]         Of course, the evidence concerning Mr. Barrie’s statement or statements at the scene is not conclusive of fault or liability.  However, it is evidence I can consider in determining liability on the facts of this case…

The existence of such a statement provides a reasonable explanation for the conduct of the officers at the time in relation to the accident, and the lack of further investigation.  The officers were satisfied that Mr. Barrie had assumed responsibility for collision.  Neither of the officers was told anything to contradict what Mr. Barrie told Constable Zawadsky.

[35]         I find therefore that Mr. Barrie, an inexperienced driver, was operating his motorcycle without due care and attention, and was following Ms. Marshall’s vehicle too closely as they travelled north on Mt. Lehman Road.  As a result, Mr. Barrie was unable to avoid colliding with Ms. Marshall’s car when she went to make a right turn onto Marshall Road from Mt. Lehman Road…

[37]         In summary, Mr. Barrie has not discharged the onus on him to show that he was not at fault for the collision.  Rather, Mr. Barrie’s conduct caused the collision.

[38]         It follows that Mr. Barrie’s action is dismissed

The bottom line is that if you are involved in a collision you need to know that admissions can be used against you in subsequent court proceedings.  If you are interested in this topic you can click here to read another case where a post-accident admission proved fatal to a party in a personal injury lawsut.