ICBC faces $400m loss as court tosses out cost-saving measure

Court rules ICBC move unconstitutional

BC Supreme Court has told Victoria its changes to the court’s rules in an attempt to slash ICBC’s accident case costs through cutting expert witnesses are unconstitutional.

And, said Attorney General David Eby, it’s a decision that could cost the insurer almost $400 million in cost savings it was attempting to realize in dealing with the public insurer’s debts.

article continues below

“It’s obviously a challenging decision for us in our reform efforts,” Eby said.

On Nov. 23, 2018, Eby said the provincial auto insurer saw a $1.3 billion net loss in 2017-18, with an expected loss of $890 million this fiscal year. He laid some blame on lawyers “strategically building injury claim values resulting in higher costs borne by ICBC ratepayers.”

Finance Minister Carole James put the blame pedal further to the floor in her November 2018 quarterly financial update, blaming ICBC’s $206 million loss for the period on “mainly increased claims costs.”

Now, Eby said, the government will have to look at either an appeal of the decision or other legislative options to save money.

“This obviously a very disappointing case to read,” Eby said. “It is especially challenging knowing the problem that we face in our justice system with the bloated and excessive adversarial expert system that costs literally tens of thousands of dollars for plaintiffs and defence to deal with.

“Everyone agrees the costs of going to court are too high.”

The attorney general, a lawyer himself, went on to say, “The number of around $400 million comes from the amount that was claimed in a single fiscal year but comes from a number of other years as well.”

He said the savings would have been realized in this fiscal year. “We’ll have to have a look and see what the actual financial impact will be for ICBC and for the province.”

The court said changes to the court’s processes in handling expert witnesses was beyond the scope of Eby’s powers.

In his decision, Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson said Eby’s move encroached on the court's jurisdiction to control its process, power that goes back centuries.

Hinkson said the changed rule “restricts a core function of the court to decide a case fairly upon the evidence adduced by the parties. The effect of the impugned rule is to require the court to play an investigatory function in place of its traditional non-adversarial role, contrary to the principle of party presentation.”

The Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. argued before Hinkson that the rule change would deny litigants the right of access to the court, because a legislative measure creates undue hardship for litigants in obtaining access to justice.

The government argued denying the rule change would limit access to justice, saying such a ruling from the court would constitutionalize an expensive and inefficient trial procedure. The government said such a move would preclude legislatures from modifying civil procedure to respond to the reality of modern trial practice to better serve the goals of accessible dispute resolution.

“My concern is the decision has created a constitutional fence around this broken system,” Eby said.

“We’re still studying the decision to figure out what the next steps are.”

jhainsworth@glaciermedia.ca

@jhainswo

Click here for original article.

Copyright © Powell River Peak
Click here to take part in our readers survey

Read more from the Business in Vancouver

Comments

NOTE: To post a comment you must have an account with at least one of the following services: Disqus, Facebook, Twitter, Google+ You may then login using your account credentials for that service. If you do not already have an account you may register a new profile with Disqus by first clicking the "Post as" button and then the link: "Don't have one? Register a new profile".

The Powell River Peak welcomes your opinions and comments. We do not allow personal attacks, offensive language or unsubstantiated allegations. We reserve the right to edit comments for length, style, legality and taste and reproduce them in print, electronic or otherwise. For further information, please contact the editor or publisher, or see our Terms and Conditions.

comments powered by Disqus

PEAK POLL

Is the labour dispute between Western Forest Products and United Steelworkers affecting your family?

or  view results

City of Powell River Council advocates for resolution to current forestry strike

Sign Up for our Newsletter!

Community Event Calendar


Find out what's happening in your community and submit your own local events.