In today’s case, Thiessen v. Kepfer, 2025 BCSC 127 the Supreme Court ruled on cost awards following an ICBC personal injury trial. The plaintiff was awarded $1,224,699.74 in damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred in April, 2017. The key issue in this cost ruling was whether the plaintiff was entitled to special or uplift costs in addition to double costs under Supreme Court Civil Rule (SCCR) 9-1(5)(b).
The defendants admitted liability, and the trial focused on the quantification of damages. The plaintiff had made formal settlement offers before trial, which were significantly lower than the final judgment. The court ruled that these offers to ICBC ought reasonably to have been accepted and granted the plaintiff double costs from May 17, 2023, onward. However, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for special or uplift costs, finding no evidence of reprehensible conduct by the defendants.
Double Costs Award
Under SCCR 9-1, the court has discretion to award double costs when a party makes a reasonable settlement offer that is rejected, and the final judgment exceeds that offer. The defendants conceded that the plaintiff’s pre-trial offers were reasonable and should have been accepted. Consequently, the court applied the prescribed consequence: double costs for all litigation steps from May 17, 2023, onward.
Justice Kent emphasized that SCCR 9-1 is designed to encourage settlement and penalize parties who unreasonably reject fair offers. The court rejected the plaintiff’s additional claims for special or uplift costs, stating that the defendants’ litigation conduct—while ultimately unsuccessful—was not abusive or otherwise deserving of sanction.
Key Factors When Making or Accepting a Settlement Offer
Here are several crucial considerations when making or responding to a settlement offer for motor vehicle accidents occurring before April 1, 2019:
-
Reasonableness of the Offer
- Offers should reflect a fair assessment of damages based on medical evidence, expert opinions, and case law.
- In Thiessen v. Kepfer, the plaintiff’s pre-trial offers aligned more closely with the final judgment, which supported the award of double costs.
-
Timing of the Offer
- Courts consider whether an offer was made early enough for the other party to evaluate it meaningfully.
- In this case, the plaintiff’s offers were made well before trial, giving the defendants adequate time to accept them.
-
Likelihood of Success at Trial
- A party should assess the strengths and weaknesses of their case realistically.
- The defendants in Thiessen underestimated the strength of the plaintiff’s case, resulting in a significantly higher judgment against them.
-
Potential Cost Consequences
- Rejecting a reasonable offer can lead to double costs, significantly increasing financial liability.
- Accepting a fair settlement offer can mitigate risk and avoid unnecessary legal expenses.
-
Financial Considerations
- A party’s financial position may impact their ability to sustain a prolonged trial.
- While the court considers financial circumstances, this alone does not justify rejecting a reasonable offer.
Legal Limitations on ICBC Claims After April 1, 2019, and May 2021
It is important to note that motor vehicle accident claims in British Columbia are subject to significant legislative changes that impact the ability to sue for damages. For accidents occurring after April 1, 2019, injuries deemed “minor” under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act are subject to a strict compensation cap, and individuals may be required to resolve disputes through the Civil Resolution Tribunal rather than the courts. This limits recovery for pain and suffering in many cases.
Furthermore, for accidents occurring on or after May 1, 2021, British Columbia implemented a no-fault insurance system, meaning most injured individuals can no longer sue for damages, regardless of fault. Compensation is now largely dictated by ICBC’s Enhanced Care model, which provides structured benefits rather than court-awarded damages. This represents a significant reduction in civil rights for those involved in accidents, making it essential for individuals to understand their legal options before pursuing a claim.
The award of double costs serves as a reminder that rejecting a reasonable offer can lead to significant financial penalties. Ultimately, a well-timed and reasonable offer can expedite resolution and minimize risk.
