In Sudbury v. ICBC, 2025 BCCRT 176, the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) adjudicated a dispute arising from a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 5, 2020, in Burnaby. The applicant claimed that the unidentified driver was negligent and sought damages from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act (IVA). He argued that his accident-related injuries were not minor and sought $210,000 in damages. ICBC countered that his injuries were minor under the IVA and contested the sufficiency of his efforts to identify the other driver.
The primary issues before the CRT were:
- Whether the tribunal should rely on Dr. Zeeshan Waseem’s independent medical examination (IME) report.
- Whether the injuries met the definition of minor under IVA section 101.
- Whether his injuries resulted in a serious impairment, as defined by law, leading to substantial inability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs).
Substantial Inability and Serious Impairment
Under the Minor Injury Regulation (MIR), an injury is presumed minor unless it results in a serious impairment that substantially limits a claimant’s ability to perform ADLs. The tribunal analyzed the injuries under this framework.
Nature of Injuries
The tribunal found that the claimant suffered from chronic mechanical neck pain due to diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH), chronic lower back pain due to spinal stenosis, and chronic bilateral knee pain due to osteoarthritis. These pre-existing conditions were aggravated by the accident, leading to significant functional decline. His whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) was classified as minor because there was insufficient evidence of demonstrable and clinically relevant neurological symptoms.
Impact on ADLs
The tribunal considered various ADLs, including transportation, household maintenance, and personal hygiene. Before the accident, the claimant was independent in all these activities. Post-accident, he experienced significant limitations. He was unable to drive frequently, avoid rush-hour traffic, and perform tasks on his hobby farm, requiring hired help. His ability to perform personal hygiene was also impaired, necessitating the use of assistive devices like grab bars and a walker.
Determination of Substantial Inability
The tribunal relied on the legal framework set out in Sparrowhawk v. Zapoltinsky, which established that a substantial inability exists when an injury prevents, impedes, or diminishes a person’s ability to perform an ADL. The CRT found that the impairments met this threshold, given his ongoing and significant limitations in performing routine tasks. The CRT concluded that the chronic neck pain, lower back pain, and knee pain were not minor injuries under the IVA. However, his whiplash injury was classified as minor. The tribunal declined to resolve his damages claim, as it was more appropriately addressed in his ongoing Supreme Court action. ICBC was ordered to reimburse him $125 in CRT fees.
