Skip to main content

CRT Sidesteps First Opportunity To Add Clarity to BC’s “Minor” Injury Law

As of today BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (“CRT”) which as been granted near exclusive jurisdiction to determine if injuries are “minor” as defined by the Insurance (Vehicle) Act has yet to rule on any case providing any assistance in interpreting this new (and constitutionally challenged) legal scheme.

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:

20.As I have found the applicant solely responsible for the accident, it follows that he is not entitled to damages resulting from the accident. Therefore, I dismiss both the related minor injury determination and damages disputes.

21.Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the tribunal rules, a successful party is generally entitled to the recovery of their tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses. I see no reason to deviate from that general rule. As the applicant was not successful, I find that he is not entitled to reimbursement of his paid tribunal fees. The respondent paid $25 as a response fee for each of the two disputes, and I find he is entitled to reimbursement of the $50 paid. If ICBC paid the fees on the respondent’s behalf, I leave it to ICBC to address that with the respondent. Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.

Bajracharya v. Rahul, bc injury law, Minor Injury Determinations, Vice Chair Andrea Richie