Skip to main content

ICBC Confirms Culling of “External” Legal Firms They Work With

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Last week I broke the story that ICBC was mass firing most of their in house bodily injury claims lawyers.  ICBC confirmed in a reply tweet this indeed was the case.

This week I learned that the cuts were going far beyond in house lawyers but also extending to the private practice firms ICBC contracts with.  ICBC has contracts with dozens of firms throughout British Columbia who conduct personal injury defense on behalf of the insurance monopoly.  Most of those firms are in the process of losing their contracts.  These contracts are being consolidated to a handful of “chosen” firms in Vancouver and a few beyond.  Others are losing this line of work.  I imagine there will be a level of disarray this creates for the existing injury files being transferred from lawyers who have been handling them for years to new counsel with an influx of many new (albeit mature) claims.

ICBC confirmed this defense firm culling in the below twitter exchange which speaks for itself.

 

ICBC Confirms Mass Firing of Their In House Bodily Injury Claims Lawyers

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Earlier this week an anonymous source told me that ICBC was in the process of firing most of their in house personal injury defense lawyers.  I had not seen any public confirmation of this so reached out to ICBC directly via social media.

The insurance monopolist confirmed in a reply tweet that they are, indeed, “winding down” this in house legal claims team.

Here is the short exchange that speaks for itself.

Proposed ICBC Class Action for Breach of Privacy

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.

On October 21, 2024 our firm filed a class action lawsuit against the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The lawsuit alleges past and ongoing misuse of the CL237A – Authorization to Provide Medical Information to obtain or attempt to obtain personal and private medical information of persons submitting claims for accident benefits when it is not necessary. The plaintiff brought this lawsuit on behalf of all persons who submitted claims for accident benefits to ICBC for injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents after May 1, 2021 and who either had private medical records obtained by ICBC, or had their access to accident benefits threatened for declining to sign a CL237A – Authorization to Provide Medical Information to ICBC.

The proposed representative plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle in October of 2023 and made a claim to ICBC for accident benefits. ICBC told her that she had to sign a CL237A authorization, which they used to obtain clinical records containing her medical history from prior and subsequent to the date of the motor vehicle accident. She was not advised of the nature or extent of records ICBC intended to obtain or provided the opportunity to ensure that only relevant information would be shared. As a result, ICBC had obtained irrelevant, personal, and private medical information about the plaintiff viewable by any non-medical professional assisting with her claim. She revoked the authorization after discovering the unfettered access it provided to ICBC with respect to her medical history. Without informing the plaintiff of their intention to do so, ICBC attempted to use the revoked CL237A authorization to obtain further clinical records.  After confirming that they did not have a valid authorization, ICBC threatened to suspend or delay her access to accident benefits if she did not authorize ICBC to access her medical history.

The “No-Fault” Insurance scheme legislated by the Province of British Columbia, formally known as “Enhanced Care”, came into effect in May 1, 2021. The scheme substantially barred injured victims from bringing legal action for their injuries and discouraged them from obtaining legal advice concerning their rights and obligations under the new legislation. As the sole provider of the basic auto insurance coverage in British Columbia, ICBC has experienced a significant increase in their power over injured claimants. Although the government legislated a duty on ICBC to inform and educate injured claimants of their rights and obligations, the Notice of Civil Claim alleges that ICBC frequently and routinely fails to fulfill this duty, overstates their statutory authority for access to medical records, and violates the privacy of injured claimants.

If you’ve been impacted by these practices you can share your experience with us here.

MacIsaac & Company Expands Into Family Law

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.

I’m excited to announce that starting February 1, 2025 MacIsaac & Company’s services are expanding to include family law.

Stuart Wright will be joining the firm and growing and overseeing this practice area.

Stuart practices exclusively in family law and is available to serve clients anywhere in British Columbia. He focuses on individuals looking for a separation or divorce and offers a range of tools to get there. Stuart regularly deals with cases that involve:

  • spousal support
  • separation agreements
  • division of complicated finances
  • difficult personalities
  • stubborn parenting conflicts
  • good people doing their best

Even high-conflict situations can usually be transformed by personalized advice and a well-prepared mediation. When needed, Stuart has achieved successful outcomes for clients in Provincial Court and Supreme Court. 

Contact us today if you need assistance with any of the above.

BC Conservatives Promise to “end ICBC’s monopoly” and Restore Rights For Crash Victims

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Its election season. And promises are being made.

The BC NDP have stripped crash victims of their rights.  There are many horror stories of people maimed, disabled and even killed by negligent drivers being stripped of the right to sue and lacking the ability to seek proper compensation for their financial and other losses following such tragedy.

The BC Conservative Party has gone on record saying they will end ICBC’s monopoly and restore rights for victims with life altering injuries.

Their full position reads as follows.

I have reached out to the Conservative party via X requesting clarity on what they mean by their promise to

“make sure anyone with life altering injuries has the right to representation and the ability to fight for the support they need”.

I will update this post should they reply.

Reporter Rob Shaw states notes as follows:

“No fault insurance will remain in place, along with caps on minor soft tissue injuries, but those with “life altering injuries” will be exempted and allowed to sue for compensation, according to Conservative policy“

https://x.com/RobShaw_BC/status/184162803274793372020

BC Supreme Court Judge “Unable to Presume That ICBC Will Conduct Itself Honourably Moving Forward”

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Pointed reasons for judgment released this week by the BC Supreme Court showed just how poorly ICBC fulfilled their obligations to an individual they insured despite making promises to the court that they will be fair.  Madam Justice Murray noted she is “unable to presume that ICBC will conduct itself honourably moving forward“.

Here is the context. In the recent case (Taylor v. Peters) the Plaintiff suffered serious injuries in a 2017 crash.  She was not at fault.  Back then BC crash victims still enjoyed the right to sue for proper compensation.  At trial the plaintiff was awarded $407,000 in total damages.  ICBC, the insurer for the at fault driver, could deduct from the award any money the Plaintiff could receive from them directly as a Part 7 benefit.  ICBC asked the court to reduce the award by over $141,000 arguing they “will irrevocably, unequivocally, and unconditionally agree to pay the plaintiff, for the items awarded by the court in the Cost of Future Care section in the Reasons for Judgment“.  They filed an affidavit with the court making this promise.

Despite this promise ICBC time and again failed to pay the Plaintiff benefits the court found were needed as future care costs.  ICBC’s own lawyer admitted to the court “that ICBC has failed to handle Ms. Taylor’s claim appropriately but submits that starting now they will do so“.  The court had no time for this promise.  Instead the court found that ICBC’s past actions were the best predictions of their future behavior and refused to give the Defendant/ICBC the substantial deduction from the award.  In doing so Madam Justice Murray provided the following pointed comments:

Continue reading

Help Needed After Tragic Brain Injury From BC Kickboxing Bout

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.

 

This week CBC covered a sad story of a young PhD student studying at UBC who suffered a likely permanent brain injury from what was advertised as a ‘light’ and ‘controlled’ contact kickboxing bout which was hosted at Simon Fraser University.

Zhenhuan Lei is likely in a permanent vegetative state.  His mom, Ying Li, has been appointed his committee and commenced litigation.

Our firm is representing the family in this litigation and I will not comment publicly on the case.

That said I am happy the case has received media attention as Zhenhuan Lei’s medical needs are profound.

We have started a GoFundMe which already has been integral in providing assistance to the family and helped them cover part of the medical flight to bring Zhenhuan Lei back to China.  That flight alone cost $100,000 of which Ying Li had to pay $30,000.

If you can donate to the fundraiser your assistance is greatly appreciated.  If you can take a moment to share it that too is appreciated.

The GoFundMe can be found here.

_________________________________________

Update –

Ying Li has released the below public statement. I reproduce it here in full so you can hear from her directly and know this is who you have helped with your contributions. (please note this statement is from a week ago and he has since been successfully flown back to China).

Thank you everyone for all of your support. It is very much appreciated.
_____________________________

My son has been studying and living in Canada for five years. He is a cheerful, handsome, and kind young man who loves life. He diligently studies and works, often conducting experiments until late at night. He once told me that life only affords a few chances.

Suddenly, one morning, a news struck my family. In China, I received a call from a Canadian hospital informing me that my son was in a severe coma and needed surgery to avoid losing his life. Even with the surgery, there was no guarantee of saving him. They sought my decision on whether to proceed with the operation. Tearfully, I consented, desperately hoping for his survival. The surgery was successful, thanks to the exceptional skills of Canadian doctors, the meticulous care of the nurses, and his resilient vitality. He faced numerous dangers, overcame many obstacles, and reached his current state.

Ten days after the incident, with the assistance of the Chinese embassy and the Canadian immigration office, I arrived in Canada. It has been four months, and I feel as if I have experienced a death and am physically and mentally exhausted. I can’t comprehend how a well-behaved child, who participated in an entertainment competition, had his life changed so drastically. A promising life of a future scientist, an ambitious young man, has now turned into lying in a hospital bed every day and staring at the ceiling. I don’t know what he’s thinking, whether he harbors resentment, regrets, or frustration about participating in that life-altering competition.

After calming down, I must face all the problems that arose from this incident. My son grew up in a single-parent household, and he is my only child. All my efforts have been devoted to him, and raising him to this point has not been easy. Just as he was about to complete his Ph.D., hopes were shattered. Now, I have to embark on another journey, caring for him in the latter part of his life. Medical expenses, rehabilitation costs, family doctor fees, nursing expenses, transportation back to China, and more are looming in front of me. However, I don’t know how long I can accompany him. What will happen to him in the future, and who will take care of him? Unfortunately, amidst this misfortune, I am fortunate to have encountered a good lawyer named Erik Magraken, who has sincerely and significantly assisted me. I am deeply thankful for his help and the generous contributions from many kind-hearted people. My heart is full of gratitude.

Now, my concern is the treatment cost if he returns to China. Hiring someone costs 300 yuan per day, totaling 9,000 yuan per month. I don’t have that much money, so I can only take care of him myself. My own health is not good, and I don’t know how long I can care for him. I worry about what will happen if I’m not around, who will take care of him, and I am filled with daily anxiety and despair.

At this point, I just want to return to China as soon as possible for hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Perhaps it can help him regain some abilities. That is the most important thing, even if it’s just a slight improvement, such as being able to eat on his own. Watching him every day, I feel very sad. I am also reaching my limit. I want to go to the emergency room, but I am reluctant to spend money. I need to save money for his plane ticket to return to China for treatment, including hyperbaric oxygen therapy, skull repair surgery, stem cells, and more. Any treatment that might help him, such as acupuncture, massage, and traditional Chinese medicine, has shown benefits for him. So now, not only do I worry about his illness, but I also worry about money. Even if the plane fare is resolved, I still have to worry about the cost of treatment in China. It’s mentally and physically exhausting.

 

We Are Hiring!

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.

MacIsaac & Company is looking for an associate lawyer to join our established litigation practice in Victoria, BC.  Our Victoria office is located on the waterfront at Fisherman’s Wharf in historic James Bay, close to downtown.  We offer a casual, team-oriented and collaborative working environment.

The practice is hands-on by nature and requires some time in the office.  A hybrid work model could be considered.

Three or more years of qualified litigation experience in BC is essential.  Our firm has a large existing caseload and a strong network with lawyers throughout BC and Alberta.  The position involves overseeing direct conduct of a mature caseload of active litigation files, and a willingness to further expand the practice is always encouraged and supported by the firm.

While we are seeking to fill a full-time permanent position, practitioners who are interested in working as an associate counsel on an annual contract basis are invited to apply.

              Compensation:

$100,000 – $175,000 yearly, depending on experience

Apply confidentially using the online form at the bottom of the page here, or send your resume in confidence to: Victoria@macisaacandcompany.com

Taxi Driver Negligent For Failing To Secure Seatbelt on Wheelchair Seated Passenger

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published last month addressing a key liability question – is a driver of a taxi negligent for not securing a seatbelt on an adult passenger who is in a wheelchair?  The answer was yes.

In the recent case (Stillwell v. Richmond Cabs Ltd.) the Plaintiff was injured while being transported in a taxi.   The Defendant driver helped load the Plaintiff in his taxi and “did not affix the wheelchair seatbelt that would have secured Ms. Stillwell’s body in place.“.  The court found that due to her physical limitations the Plaintiff  “would not have been able to secure the wheelchair seatbelt by herself due to its positioning in the Taxi.”

The driver was mildly exceeding the speed limit and following a vehicle before him a bit closely.  Raccoons ran onto the road.  The vehicles stopped suddenly.  No collision occurred.  But the Plaintiff was thrown from her wheelchair suffering serious injuries.

The Defendant denied liability.  However the Court found the driver was negligent both for failing to affix the seatbelt on his passenger and for following the front vehicle too closely which contributed to the sudden breaking.

In finding the defendant negligent the court provided the following reasons:

Continue reading

BC Court of Appeal Lays Down The Law of Sports Negligence Claims in BC

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Today the BC Court of Appeal published reasons for judgement clarifying the law in sports negligence lawsuits in BC.  In short liability can flow if a player is dangerous or reckless in their actions, even if executing an otherwise permitted technique.

In the recent case (Cox v. Miller) the Plaintiff suffered a grade 3 dislocation of the right acromioclavicular joint as a result of a slide tackle in a recreational soccer game.  The game was under FIFA rules in which slide tackles were allowed.  At trial the Defendant was found liable with the court finding he approached the Plaintiff from a blind spot, had both his feet leave the ground and violently slide tackled the Plaintiff while having no chance of actually contacting the ball.  The court found doing so was negligent.  Noting that while slide tackles were legal this particular slide tackle was dangerous, reckless and beyond what players consented to at this recreational level of play.

The Defendant appealed arguing the court imposed too tough of a standard of care.  The BC Court of Appeal disagreed and dismissed the appeal.  In doing so the Court provided the following summary of negligence principles applied in the sports law setting in British Columbia:

[40]         While the referee was in charge of the match, the judge was in charge of the litigation. She was, in effect, the final referee. On her factual findings, the appellant’s conduct amounted to serious foul play that would have justified the issuance of a red card disqualifying the appellant from further participation in the game. In short, the tackle was not, as the appellant suggests, permitted by the rules of the game, nor was it found by the judge merely to be careless. It was found to be dangerous.

[41]         Respectfully, it appears to me that the appellant has advanced a straw-man argument, divorced from the judge’s factual findings. Put bluntly, the issue he seeks to have resolved in this case—whether mere carelessness in the execution of a permissible defensive play made attracts liability in negligence—does not arise on the factual findings made by the judge.

[42]         Second, I know of no authority for the broad proposition the appellant would have us endorse—that a play permitted by the rules of the game, no matter how dangerously executed and regardless of the context in which the game is being played (here, a game played in a recreational league involving participants with a wide range of skill and experience), can never give rise to liability in negligence.

[43]         The appellant cites no direct authority for the proposition that a permissible play, executed dangerously, can never amount to negligence.

[44]         In my view, the appellant can derive no comfort on this point from the remarks of Lambert J.A. in Herok, which merely affirm the proposition that careless acts falling outside the risks assumed by players by participating in the game are capable of grounding liability in negligence. The case certainly does not support the broad proposition advanced by the appellant. Further, I am unpersuaded by the appellant’s attempt to read into the governing authorities of this Court, including Herok, Unruh and Zapf, in support for his position.

[45]         By analogy, open ice body checking is permitted in hockey. However, liability in negligence may flow if the body check is executed in a manner that exposes an opponent to an unreasonable risk of harm—a risk the opponent could not reasonably be expected to assume by participating in the game, having regard to contextual factors including the speed and level at which the game is played. A hockey player is no more immune from liability because body checking is permitted than is a driver who executes a lawful left turn in a manner heedless of the safety of others.

[46]         Third, acceptance of the appellant’s proposition would give the rules of play a near determinative role in the analysis. Again, I know of no authority that would elevate whether the play in issue was permitted by the rules of the game to such a lofty status. While the rules of the game are a factor to be considered along with other circumstances, the rules are by no means conclusive: Unruh at paras. 23–25, 29, 32–33; Finnie v. Ropponen, 1987 Carswell 659, [1987] B.C.J. No. 448 (S.C.) at paras. 12, 14; Condon v. Basi, [1985] 2 All E.R. 453 (C.A.), 1 W.L.R. 866—where, as here, a dangerously executed slide tackle grounded a negligence finding.

[47]         The appellant also argues that the judge erred in law by conflating the meaning of “recklessness” as used in the FIFA rules of play with recklessness in law. I see no merit in this position. Nothing in the judge’s reasons supports the appellant’s position on this point. Further, as I will explain below, the judge found the appellant to have deliberately attempted a slide tackle that he knew, or ought to have known, created an unjustified risk of harm. Against these findings, she made no error in characterizing the appellant’s conduct as reckless.

[48]         Finally, the appellant submits that the factual findings of the judge support only a finding of carelessness. Again, I do not agree. The tackle came from behind the respondent, who did not see the challenge coming and had no opportunity to brace himself for impact. The appellant slid into the respondent with both of his legs off the ground, striking the respondent slightly below his knees. The trial judge found there was no possibility that the appellant would reach the ball in executing the tackle. In these circumstances, the judge’s factual findings, when viewed in the context of the evidence as a whole, support her ultimate conclusion that the appellant’s actions were reckless and dangerous.

…

[53]         To summarize, I would reject the appellant’s proposition that a defending player in a soccer game is immune from liability for negligence if there is a possibility they will contact the ball in executing a slide tackle, no matter how remote that possibility is, or how dangerous execution of the tackle will be to an opposing player. That is not and could not be the law.

[54]         Whether this ground of appeal is properly characterized as an extricable error in law or a question of mixed fact and law—the appellant was not clear on this point—makes no difference to the end result. I see no extricable error in law, nor have I been persuaded that the judge’s analysis reflects palpable and overriding error.