The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal published reasons for judgment earlier this month dismissing an application for ICBC wage replacement benefits following 5 days of disability from a vehicle collision.
In the recent case (Cruz v. ICBC) the self represented applicant was injured in a December, 2019 collision. His injuries caused him to miss 7 days of work. He applied for ICBC to cover his wage loss under their no-fault benefits but they refused arguing he was not disabled enough days to qualify for benefits. The CRT agreed and dismissed the applicant’s claim. In doing so Tribunal Member Kristen Gardner provided the following reasons:
Reasons for judgement were published earlier this month dismissing an applicants claim at the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal asking for ICBC to pay physiotherapy treatment expenses as a lump sum.
In the recent case (Smith v. ICBC) the self represented applicant was injured in a October, 2019 collision. He required physiotherapy which ICBC paid for directly to the service provider. The Applicant asked the CRT to award him $12,000 as a lump sum for treatment expenses. The claim was dismissed with the CRT noting that while ICBC can pay a lump sum for treatment expenses doing so is entirely discretionary and continued payment of necessary treatments as they are incurred is acceptable. In dismissing the claim Tribunal Member Kristen Gardner provided the following reasons:
As discussed numerous times on this site BC law recognizes that if property is damaged by the wrong doing of another and if that property is then worth less even after all reasonable repairs have been made the ‘accelerated depreciation’ can be recovered against the at fault party.
ICBC often refuses to recognize accelerated depreciation claims following collisions and forces crash victims to litigate these claims. Reasons for judgement were published today by BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal with such a fact pattern.
In today’s case (Peterson v. Texmo) the Applicant’s vehicle sustained over $10,000 in damages in a crash the Respondent was at fault for. The Applicant asked ICBC to compensate him for his vehicle’s accelerated depreciation which reached several thousand dollars but the insurer refused to recognize this loss raising several arguments which missed the mark such as suggesting that if the vehicle was not sold there is no loss and that the vehicle was imported from the US which if resold there may not have a similar market loss. In rejecting these arguments and finding that the applicant was entitled to damages for accelerated depreciation Tribunal Member David Jiang provided the following reasons:
In last week’s case (Yousefi v. ICBC) the Applicant filed a CRT action to preserve the right to seek ICBC no fault benefits should any such benefits be denied. The CRT noted that such claims cannot be indefinitely paused and if they are not withdrawn must proceed to judgement were they will be dismissed if no past benefits are outstanding.
The CRT reached similar conclusions in two sister decision released at the same time (Shin v. ICBC and Bali v. ICBC)
In reaching such a disposition in this case Vice Chair Andrea Ritchie provided the following reasons:
Earlier this year the CRT was asked to set aside a “minor” injury settlement after the applicant discovered a disc bulge. The CRT refused to do so. Today reasons for judgement were published (Bajracharya v. Rahul) by the CRT inovlving a collision claim disputing the ‘minor’ injury designation. Despite this opportunity the CRT refused to dive into the topic finding that the Applicant was liable for the collision thus dismissing the claim and finding that the minor injury question did not need to be answered. In reaching this conclusion Vice Chair Andrea Ritchie provided the following reasons:
As discussed numerous times on this site BC law recognizes that if property is damaged by the wrong doing of another and if that property is then worth less even after all reasonable repairs have been made the ‘accelerated depreciation’ can be recovered against the at fault party.
In the first Accelerated Depreciation claim heard by BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal such damages were awarded to the owner of a Porsche that was damaged in a collision.
In today’s case (Lai v. Leung) the Applicant’s vehicle was struck by the Respondent who admitted fault of the crash. The impact caused damages which cost over $6,500 to repair. The Applicant consulted with an appraiser who provided evidence that as a result the vehicle will be worth less on the open market. ICBC refused to recognize this. Both ICBC and the at fault motorist were sued but the tribunal noted that ICBC was not a correct party in such a dispute and the claim is properly brought against the at fault motorist with ICBC simply playing the role of their insurer.
In siding with the Applicant and accepting the expert opinion of the Fournier Auto Group Tribunal Member Trisha Apland provided the following reasons in ordering that $1,805 in damages for Accelerated Depreciation be paid:
In what I believe is the first case of BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal addressing ‘minor’ injuries under the ever changing ICBC legal landscape reasons for decision were published earlier this month refusing to set aside a ‘minor injury’ settlement after the discovery of a disc bulge.
In the recent case (Naqvi v. ICBC) the applicant was involved in a collision in May, 2019. His doctor diagnosed him as suffering injuries to the right shoulder, right upper back, and left lower back radiating to the left hip with an optimistic prognosis to make full recovery. Believing these were caught by the minor injury regulation the application settled his claim for $6,890 which included non-pecuniary damages at the capped amount for such injuries.
Subsequent to settlement the applicant discovered he had a disc bulge in his spine and argued this new diagnosed injury falls outside of the ‘minor injury’ definition and accordingly sought to set the settlement asise. The CRT refused to allow this arguing a binding settlement was reached that was “not grossly unfair or unconscionable“. In refusing to allow the settlement to be set aside tribunal Vice Chair Andrea Richie provided the following reasons:
Reasons for judgement were recently published by BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (“CRT”) dismissing a claim for accelerated depreciation following a serious vehicle collision because the applicant named the wrong party.
In the recent case (Liang v. ICBC) the Applicant’s vehicle was involved in a collision where it sustained over $17,000 in damages. When the vehicle was repaired the Applicant believed its market value was compromised with an accelerated depreciation of several thousand dollars.
Instead of suing the at fault motorists she sued ICBC who presumably were their insurance company. The CRT dismissed the claim finding that the wrong party was sued. Legally it is true that ICBC would not be contractually liable to pay for accelerated depreciation to a plaintiff as that is a tort claim and such cases do need to be brought directly against negligent motorists, not their insurance company. Insurers do, however, pay damages for accelerated depreciation once their insured at fault motorist is held liable.
Interestingly the CRT refused to substitute the motorists in for ICBC finding that since the limitation period expired it would be prejudicial to do so. It is a bit difficult to follow this logic, assuming ICBC was the motorists insurer, as they are the ones who would ultimately be dealing with the claim in any event once the correct parties were named. The Applicant appeared reluctant to name the correct party at the outset which is equally hard to understand. It is worth noting that the BC Supreme Court can and regularly does allow the addition/substitution of parties after the expiration of a lawsuit and does so quite frequently. In any event below are the reasons Vice Chair Andrea Richie provided in dismissing the claim:
Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Court of Appeal criticizing BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal for an “unreasonable” and “flawed” analysis when reviewing a party’s request to be represented by a lawyer.
In today’s case (The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2575 v. Booth) the owners of a strata unit filed a dispute against their Strata Corporation asking for some repair costs to be paid. They filed their claim in BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (“CRT”) under their jurisdiction to resolve strata property disputes. The applicants then tagged on a claim seeking a further $25,000 in damages for “loss of enjoyment of life, threats, abuse, and stress” despite the CRT only having Small Claims authority of up to $5,000.
The Strata Corporation had insurance in place which would pay for a lawyer to represent them in the dispute. The CRT limits the use of lawyers and the CRT’s permission is required for a party to be represented in most cases. When the Strata asked for permission to be represented by lawyer this was denied with the CRT stating there was nothing ‘complex’ about the dispute giving rise to the ‘exceptional’ circumstances warranting a lawyer’s involvement. The CRT noted that the Strata could simply get legal advice behind the scenes instead of formally being represented by a lawyer.
The BC Court of Appeal overturned this decision finding the CRT flawed in their characterization of this dispute and their suggestion that legal advice only be utilized behind the scenes. The court noted there were complexities including issues as to whether the CRT could even hear such a dispute and hinted that Charter and Constitutional issues could be in play as well. In sending the matter back for a fresh determination the Court provided the following reasons:
Today BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal published reasons for judgement dismissing a claim based on alleged emotional injury following a cat attack.
In today’s case (Kvinlaug v. Schuchort) the Applicant alleged that a cat owned by the Respondents attacked her dog. She argued “that she sustained emotional injury resulting from her dog being attacked“. The Tribunal dismissed the claim before even getting to a damages analysis on the basis that no liability could be proven under any of the known principles for fault following animal attacks.
In finding that cat attacks are fundamentally different than dog attacks under a negligence analysis Tribunal Member Sherelle Goodwin provided the following reasons: