The Supreme Court of British Columbia today ruled that the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s (CRT) jurisdiction over motor vehicle accident claims was unconstitutional. The decision paves the way for victims of accidents to once again access the courts for personal injury claims.
The CRT will no longer solely be responsible for deciding whether an injury is minor or serious, whether a customer is entitled to certain accident benefits, and settlement amounts for injury claims below $50,000.
Changes to accident claims
The BC government brought in changes to motor vehicle accident claims in 2019 that aimed to ease the financial burden on ICBC. One of the changes was to move the dispute resolution process from the court system to the Civil Resolution Tribunal. Section 133(1) of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA) gave the CRT exclusive power to determine:
- entitlement to no-fault accident benefits paid or payable under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act;
- whether an injury is a “minor injury” under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act; and
- liability and damages for personal injury of $50,000 or less.
The changes also introduced new limits on payouts for pain and suffering caused by minor injuries. S. 16.1 of the CRTA, denied certain claimants access to the Supreme Court of BC to adjudicate their claims and instead gave the responsibility to the CRT.
The aim was to have accident victims represent themselves in disputes with ICBC, saving the insurer the costs associated with hiring lawyers. In effect, it gave individuals less power to seek full and fair compensation because it limited their ability to have a judge hear their claim.
Trial Lawyers Association of BC
One group that did not agree with the changes was the Trial Lawyers Association of BC (TLABC). The non-profit organisation is made up of 1,500 lawyers, many of whom represent victims of motor vehicle accident claims. It was set up to protect the rights if British Columbians, including the right of access to the superior courts.
When the CRTA amendments came into effect, the TLABC filed a civil claim challenging their constitutionality. It claimed the amendments offended s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which grants the Governor General the ability to appoint judges to superior courts in each Province. It argued that CRT members are appointed by the government, not the Governor General, and therefore represented an unconstitutional encroachment upon the functions of the superior courts. The TLABC also submitted that amendments changes denied victims their constitutional right to be heard by a judge.
Supreme Court verdict
The Supreme Court of BC found ss. 133(1) (b) and (c) and s. 16.1 of the CRTA to be unconstitutional and declared that they are of no force or effect. S. 133(1) (a) which gave the CRT jurisdiction over no-fault accident claims, was found to not offend the constitution in isolation, however, the judge said the subsection was “severable”.
This decision is the second legal victory for the TLABC in its fight against the CRTA amendments. In October 2019, it overturned limits on the use of medical experts in accident claims after the Supreme Court of BC found them to be unconstitutional.
Acumen Law Corporation can help if you would like to dispute an ICBC claim settlement. Our lawyers have a lot of experience dealing ICBC matters. Call 604-370-3050 0r 604-685-8889 for a free consultation.