Tag: Vice Chair Andrea Richie

CRT Moves Ahead With “Minor Injury” Determination Despite Ongoing Indivisible Injury Litigation in BC Supreme Court

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on January 7, 2021. Posted in BC Civil Resolution Tribunal.

Reasons for judgement were published recently by BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal declining to refuse to determine a minor injury determination dispute despite the party having previous injuries from previous crashes with ongoing litigation in the BC Supreme Court.

In the recent case (Godwin v. Bui) the parties were involved in a May, 2019 collision. The Respondent was injured in the crash and proceedings were field in the CRT who wished to move ahead to decide both liability for the crash and whether the injuries at question were ‘minor’.

The Respondent noted it would be inappropriate to decide the issue as he was injured in two previous collisions that pre-date the CRT’s jurisdiction which were in active litigation in the BC Supreme Court. He argued that “the issues are so intertwined with the other actions that it would be impractical for the CRT to make any minor injury determination in this dispute“. The Applicant did not strongly oppose this with the CRT noting the Applicant “essentially agrees that all the matters should be heard together at the BCSC.“.

Despite this the CRT refused to decline to refuse their determination and noted they would go ahead with their decision. In reaching this conclusion Vice Chair Andrea Ritchie provided the following reasons:

Three Strikes and ICBC’s Out! – Insurer’s Denial of Accelerated Vehicle Depreciation Fails Again

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on November 2, 2020. Posted in Uncategorized.

For the third time in one month ICBC has been ordered by the Civil Resolution Tribunal to pay a vehicle owner damages for accelerated depreciation following a vehicle collision.

When a vehicle is damaged in a crash it often suffers a significant loss of market value, even after all reasonable repairs are done. ICBC chooses to ignore this reality when dealing with crash victims and raises invalid arguments trying to deny such claims. For the third time in one month the Civil Resolution Tribunal has held ICBC insured driver liable for paying such damages.

In the most recent case (Herriott v. Yuen) the Applicant’s Audi Quattro sustained over $10,000 in damages in a crash that the Respondent admitted fault for. After the vehicle was repaired both the Applicant’s dealership and an expert appraiser noted there was an accelerated depreciation in the vehicle’s remaining market value. ICBC denied this claim arguing the vehicle is worth no less than it would be even without such a significant crash. In rejecting ICBC’s position and ordering damages paid recognizing the accelerated depreciation CRT Vice Chair Andrea Ritchie provided the following reasons:

CRT Dismisses “Placeholder” ICBC Benefits Lawsuits

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on October 5, 2020. Posted in BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, ICBC No-Fault (Part 7) Benefits.

Earlier this year BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (“CRT”) noted that their forum cannot be used to preserve limitation periods for ICBC no fault benefit lawsuits where no such past benefits are outstanding. Last week the CRT confirmed this position by dismissing such a ‘placeholder’ lawsuit.

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:

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

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on October 5, 2020. Posted in BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, ICBC Minor Injury Caps.

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:

CRT Dismisses Accelerated Depreciation Claim Because Applicant Named Wrong Party

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on May 29, 2020. Posted in BC Civil Resolution Tribunal.

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: