Update May 13, 2020 – Today two further CRT decisions were release with ICBC as a party. Both ruling in ICBC’s favour.
Awan v. ICBC – 2020 BCCRT 521 – 2020-05-12
“I dismiss the applicant’s claims and this dispute.”
Luton v. ICBC – 2020 BCCRT 522 – 2020-05-12
“I dismiss Ms. Luton’s claims and this dispute.”
Update May 12, 2020- Since first writing this article the CRT responded to me via twitter and noted one case in 2020 involving ICBC sided with the applicant.
Sagert v. Christiansen, 2020 BCCRT 417
This decision did not appear in the below search as ICBC was not a named party
The BC Government has passed laws forcing various disputes the public have with BC’s monopoly auto insurer, ICBC, away from court with federally appointed independent judges and into an online provincially created Civil Resolution Tribunal. The Province appoints their own adjudicators to the CRT.
The government thinks its a good idea to take even more of your judicial rights away because the CRT is so much better than court. Let’s see how this is going for British Columbians?
With a handful of cases now being reported one trend seems to be developing. When ICBC is a party the CRT seems to side with them with incredible frequency.
I conducted a simple search on the CRT’s website. Asking to pull up all cases where ICBC is named as a party for all of 2020. As of today 31 results came up.
Below is a link to each case that came up along with the Tribunal’s order. Not one applicant succeeded in fighting the insurance giant.
One applicant was bold enough to suggest there may be an apprehension of bias. The tribunal member said don’t be silly
“I find Ms. Mu has not established a reasonable apprehension of bias. Further, I find that recusing myself on the basis that the statutory appointment process gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias would frustrate the tribunal’s ability to discharge its statutory mandate, as every tribunal member would effectively be excluded from deciding cases within the tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction.”