Gignac v. Rozylo, 2010 BCSC 595

This was an ICBC personal injury claim resulting from a relatively minor car accident. The injury claimant testified that he was in a line of traffic waiting for the change of a traffic signal and the other vehicle plowed into the rear of his car. His car suddenly lurched forward and 10 degrees to the right. The other driver testified that he approached the injury claimant’s car from the rear.

The ICBC driver stopped his car to wait for the change of traffic light. It was the other driver’s intention to move into the left turn lane to execute a left turn at the intersection. When the light turned, the driver began to manoeuvre the car into the left turn lane. As he got into that lane, he noticed that the claimant’s car did not move. The ICBC driver thought something may have happened so he reversed his car, stopped, got out and approached the claimant. At that time, the driver t said he did not observe any damage on the injury claimant’s vehicle, except “maybe a little scuff mark or a little rub”. The trial judge awarded the ICBC injury claimant $192,177.51.

The injury claimant’s award for cost of future care has however been reduced to $70,400 by the Court of Appeal in  Gignac v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,2012 BCCA 351. Since 2012 ICBC appears to have discontinued their low velocity impact policy. See our article about this ICBC low velocity impact policy going underground.

 Posted by Mr. Renn A. Holness

Issue: Do you agree with the ICBC Low Velocity Impact Policy?


  1. I don’t agree with it at all. The way I see the ICBC Low Velocity Impact Policy is it’s another way of complicating matters that ultimately is at the detriment of the plaintiff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment