Catastrophic injuries are severe damage or impairments to your body, bones, person, or life. Go out. Support the injured. Keep insurers accountable. Fight for your rights. Lower car insurance costs. And, let’s limit ICBC’s unjust and unfair monopoly.

This is the truth of no-fault insurance. The tragic reality. The sad state of ICBC’s monopoly.

WHY CHANGE YOUR ICBC INJURY LAWYER:

1. The lawyer is not responsive to their client’s phone calls and/or emails.

2. The lawyer takes too long to conclude an injured victim’s file whether settlement or trial.

3. The lawyer is not willing to go to Trial and/or is inexperienced in it.

4. The lawyer undervalues an injured victim’s claim (e.g. asking the client to settle for much less than deserved).

The rumors were swirling. The party’s lack of popularity followed their candidates much like a typical Vancouver winter cloud. Much like Wilson, BC United ultimately deflated and drifted away into the abyss of irrelevance.

"The Court’s reference to awarding the plaintiff their “entire annual income for one or more years” has, unfortunately, sometimes been read as if it allows a court to arbitrarily assign an amount for the plaintiff’s loss. At trial, the defendant’s suggestion that an award of a year or two years’ salary would be appropriate appears to me to stem from a misunderstanding of Pallos. While a court can quantify the plaintiff’s damages for loss of future earning capacity in that way, it is required to carefully consider the evidence, and come to a fair assessment of the plaintiff’s loss."

A Mediation, for example, is an expensive process. Mediators regularly charge approximately $500.00 per hour which does not include the cost of the room rental, and transcribers/court reporters. Despite this, ICBC attends meretriciously: with no intentions of settling. At the same time, one must ask: why wouldn’t they abuse the system like this? They have, quite honestly, just hit the lottery with the inception of no fault insurance which promises them years and years of profits north of a billion dollars. And, as we all know, they are the only game in town; they have zero competition. Must be nice, right?

They dictate and take as they please.

As of November 2018, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”) ICBC was prepared to defend the action on the basis of a global admission of liability. The insurer subsequently changed its approach, and decided to globally deny liability. The admission of liability on behalf of Mr. Nijjar was not a mistake of fact, but rather the result of a breakdown of communication between ICBC and defence counsel. ICBC and defence counsel then failed to bring their mistake to the attention of the plaintiff’s counsel in a timely manner.

In rare but difficult circumstances, a lawyer may be ethically required to terminate a retainer agreement with a client. This may arise when issues arise where the lawyer reasonably believes that a client’s comments, wishes, demands, instructions, or otherwise conflict with the lawyer’s professional responsibilities and the appropriate Law Society’s Code of Ethics. In this Province, the Law Society of BC and its Code of Professional Conduct governs the ethical obligations of a lawyer.

On May 1, 2021, as you may know, ICBC’s new insurance regime came into force and effect. Concurrently, you may have received a $250.00 cheque in the mail and a 5%-15% reduction in your insurance costs.

A bribe, some may suggest.

Unsurprisingly, society tends to permit self-interest to dictate decisions. One example of this is no-fault. We as BC residents/citizens have had opportunities to fight against no-fault. However, most of BC was enticed, perhaps blinded, by the allure of lower insurance costs. As such, no-fault took force and effect.

For 3 individuals, the costs of no-fault have been crippling. These are their stories. This is the ugly truth of no-fault.

This Court is able to determine the enforceability of a settlement agreement summarily, unless the Court is satisfied that there is a genuine issue as to whether a settlement agreement has been reached under the law of contract: Carlton v. Carlton, 2017 BCSC 603 at paras. 20-23 and 44.

The test to determine if parties have reached a settlement agreement is whether parties have agreed on all essential terms. Determining whether the parties have agreed on all essential terms is separate from determining whether the parties have agreed on a form of release incorporating the essential terms agreed upon. A term requiring furnishing of a release and a consent dismissal is implied when a settlement agreement is reached: see Fieguth v. Acklands Ltd., 1989 CanLII 2744 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 35.

“If Mr. X arrives at a pub at around 12:40 a.m. and leaves at or about the 2 a.m. closing time after being served “four beers and four or five shots” and then gets in his car to drive home, could the pub be found to be contributorily negligent if a collision ensued causing injury?”

This was the main question posed by Mr. Justice Funt in Garisto v Goudie, 2021 BCSC 1257 (CanLII).

TRI-CITY LEGAL’s, Vic S. Maan interviewed by prominent and national legal publication, Canadian Lawyer Magazine, due to this experience and expertise.