Reasons for judgement were published today by BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (“CRT”) declining to hear a case dealing with fault for a vehicle collision.
In today’s case (Devendra v. ICBC) the Applicant was involved in a crash prior to April 1, 2019 (the date the CRT’s collision jurisdiction was significantly increased). ICBC found the applicant fully at fault for the crash. The Applicant sued ICBC and the other motorist involved arguing “ICBC refused to properly investigate the incident” and asked that his deductible and increased premiums be returned. The Applicant relied on the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction.
At the same time the other motorist sued the Applicant in the BC Supreme Court for alleged negligence causing injuries stemming from the same crash. In all the circumstances the CRT decided they were not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the applicants dispute and the issue of fault was better to be decided in the BC Supreme Court. In reaching this decision Tribunal Member Chad McCarthy provided the following reasons:
14. The respondents maintain that the applicant was 100% responsible for the accident. The applicant denies any liability. In light of the parties’ disagreement about liability, I find both the tribunal and the BC Supreme Court are effectively being asked to make a liability determination about the same motor vehicle collision. I find this could result in duplication of effort among decision makers, and could even result in different liability findings by the tribunal and the BC Supreme Court. Such outcomes are contrary to the tribunal’s mandate of efficient and fair decision-making.