I worked in Alberta for several years. Its “cap” on minor injuries has quickly proven to be ineffective. Essentially, Judges of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta did not like being forced to decide if a person’s injury falls into a made-up category of “minor injury” defined by the government. Nor did the Judges
like being forced to award an arbitrary amount ($5,080.00 in Alberta for 2018) for all injuries deemed to be “minor”. As any physician knows, no two injuries are the same. People’s bodies are unique and can react quite differently to the same impact. Even “fender-benders” can produce serious injury. (Think of a broken egg inside a seemingly undamaged carton.)
When I left Alberta, at least one Judge had ruled that if an injured person is still experiencing symptoms 3 months post-accident, then it can’t possibly be a “minor injury.” The case then proceeded as if no cap existed, and the award was rightly, much larger than the cap amount.
The problem however, is that the cap has the opposite effect of reducing the number of claims filed with the Courts. Why? Because now the insurance companies have been given an extra weapon to use in their fight 
against the injured person; an insistence that their injuries are “minor.” This drastically decreases the chances of a fair and reasonable outcome. The cap only leads to more injured victims having to take their matter all the way to trial in order to have a Judge decide whether their injury is “minor” or not; a hurdle that does not currently exist in BC. Further, the cap has been used to trick people into settling for a nominal amount. Insurance adjusters classify their injuries as “minor” and convince them they won’t receive anything more, even if they retain a lawyer. This is often done without any medical evidence whatsoever.
British Columbians pay the second highest insurance premiums in Canada. ICBC’s stats claim that there were approximately 330,000 motor vehicle accidents in 2016. About 55,000 of those were
rear-end accidents. While those numbers appear to be high, it accounts for only 7% and 1% respectively of our population (currently 4.63 million). ICBC makes it seem like everyone is making claims which is financially ruining the corporation. How can ICBC be a “dumpster fire” when 92% of the population is funding such a small portion of the people who make claims? Perhaps ICBC needs to make drastic changes internally rather than penalizing the 8% of injured motorists.
Comments are closed