A dismissal of a claim against ICBC (Karbalaeiali v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2022 BCCA 223) was the subject of this appeal. The  ICBC claimant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and settled his claims for damages and benefits. Before settlement of the claims, he had difficulty obtaining no‑fault benefits and negotiating a settlement. He attended in person at ICBC’s head office. Conflict between the appellant and ICBC staff resulted in the appellant becoming upset and crying. Police were called, officers attended and prepared a report. No charges were laid.

On another occasion the appellant was asked by an ICBC adjuster to sign authorizations for the release of medical records. After taking them home to examine them, he refused to do so because the forms contained errors.

 After the settlement of his claims, he commenced proceedings by petition against the respondents seeking orders requiring ICBC to provide: “the name of all lawyers mentioned in the police report [with respect to the January 17, 2017 incident] … ”; and “the name of the lawyer who made the two fake medical Records authorizations … given to the petitioner to sign on January 18, 2017”; and an order requiring ICBC to pay damages … as he or she may offer just, $125,000,000”. The appellant then commenced these proceedings by notice of civil claim. The relief he sought included the information referred to in the petition, and damages for mental emotional and financial distress of $125,000,000.

The Supreme Court dismissed the claim on the grounds that it did not disclose a reasonable claim. The claimant appealed.  Before the appellant attended at the offices of ICBC the case had already been settled by his then lawyer. The dispute with respect to medical records authorizations, similarly, appears to be a product of confusion. ICBC prepared authorizations that misstated the appellant’s birthdate by a day, and erroneously reproduced his MSP number. Despite this the Court of Appeal said that it would have been more helpful and avoided much expense and, perhaps, this litigation, if the claimant had fixed the errors and returned corrected, executed forms.

The appeal was dismissed. The judge did not overlook the evidence referred to by the appellant. Whether there were other avenues of redress open to the appellant was not relevant to the question whether the pleadings disclosed a reasonable claim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Post comment