Compensation Limitations for Lapu Lapu Festival Victims under BC’s No-Fault System

No-Fault Insurance and Wrongful Death Framework 2025

In April 2025, a vehicle-ramming attack at Vancouver’s Lapu Lapu Day Festival tragically killed 11 people and injured many others. The incident has brought attention to the limitations in compensation available to victims and their families. These limitations stem from two key aspects of British Columbia law: the ICBC “Enhanced Care” no-fault insurance system (in effect since May 2021) and BC’s outdated Family Compensation Act (governing wrongful death claims). This article compares the current no-fault regime to the pre-2021 tort-based system, which was eliminated by the NDP government.

Enhanced Care No-Fault Insurance: Benefits and Maximums

Under ICBC’s Enhanced Care (no-fault) model, people injured in motor vehicle accidents receive accident benefits regardless of fault, but their right to sue the at-fault driver is largely removed. Instead, compensation is provided through a schedule of capped benefits. As of 2025, the key benefit maximums and features include:

1. Medical and Rehabilitation Benefits: There is no overall maximum limit for accident-related medical care and rehabilitation expenses under Enhanced Care. (Previously, under the old system, there was a $300,000 lifetime cap on medical/rehab coverage from ICBC’s Part 7 benefits.) All necessary treatments – physiotherapy, chiropractic care, counseling, medication, home modifications, etc. are supposed to be covered as needed. This unlimited coverage is meant to ensure long-term care for injured victims without running out of funds. However, these benefits have caps and most treatment will cost more than ICBC provides.
2. Income Replacement: Victims unable to work receive income replacement of 90% of net income, up to a gross annual income cap (the maximum insurable earnings). As of April 2025, the cap is about $119,000 gross per year. This means a maximum of roughly $107,000 per year (90% of $119k) in tax-free wage loss benefits. Higher earners cannot recover income loss beyond this cap under basic coverage (though optional “top-up” insurance can be purchased separately). By comparison, before 2021 the basic wage loss benefits were much lower (previously capped at a weekly amount), but an accident victim could sue the at-fault driver for full loss of income above the ICBC limit. Under no-fault, that lawsuit option is gone, and any earnings beyond the cap are uncompensated unless optional coverage was in place.
3. Permanent Impairment Compensation: For serious permanent injuries, ICBC pays a lump-sum based on the degree of impairment. For the most severe catastrophic injuries, the maximum lump sum is approximately $307,000 (indexed annually; this was the April 2025 maximum). Lesser (but still permanent) injuries receive a lower amount on a sliding scale. This is a one-time payment for loss of bodily function. Under the prior tort system, an injured person would instead claim non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering (capped by case law at roughly $414,000 in 2025 dollars for the most severe cases) – a category now largely eliminated under no-fault (see next section).
4. Death Benefits (Funeral and Counseling): If a crash is fatal, Enhanced Care provides fixed benefits to the family to cover specific expenses. As of 2025, ICBC will pay up to $10,616 for funeral and burial costs per deceased victim. In addition, each immediate family member of the deceased (spouse, partner, child, parent, grandparent, sibling, etc.) is entitled to up to $4,440 for grief counseling services. These amounts are prescribed in ICBC’s regulations and are updated periodically. They help with practical expenses and offer some support for emotional trauma through counseling, but they do not compensate families for the pain and suffering of losing a loved one (no amount for grief beyond counseling is provided, as explained later).
5. Death Benefits (Lump-Sum to Survivors): Enhanced Care also pays lump-sum compensation to the surviving dependants of a person killed in a crash. The amounts are determined by the victim’s role (spouse or parent) and the survivors’ status:
   • Spousal Benefit: A surviving spouse or common-law partner receives a lump-sum based on the deceased’s age and income. ICBC uses a factor between 1 and 5 multiplied by the victim’s gross annual employment income (capped at the maximum insurable income) to calculate this benefit. Younger deceased earners yield a higher multiplier (reflecting more lost years of financial contribution), older victims yield a lower factor. If the deceased had no income (unemployed) and thus no income-based calculation, the spouse gets a minimum lump sum of $77,889 (2025 value). Example: If a 30-year-old victim earned $60,000/year, the surviving spouse might receive roughly 5 × $60,000 = $300,000; if a 60-year-old victim earned the same, the spouse might get around 1 × $60,000 = $60,000 (in both cases subject to the $119k income cap). The minimum ~$77.9k applies if the formula yields less or if the victim had no earnings. If there is no spouse, this spousal benefit amount is instead divided among any dependent children (see below).
   • Dependent Children: Dependent children of the deceased receive a separate lump-sum benefit. Each dependent child is entitled to an amount depending on their age at the time of the parent’s death, ranging from about $36,994 up to $69,764 per child. (A younger child gets closer to the maximum $69k, an older teen gets less, around $37k, reflecting fewer remaining years of dependency.) If the deceased was a single parent, the children receive two sets of benefits – their own dependent-child benefit plus a share of what a spouse would have received. This doubles up the compensation for children who have lost their sole caregiver.
   • Dependent Parents or Other Dependants: A parent of the deceased (or other relative) can also qualify for a lump-sum as a dependant if they were financially dependent on the deceased. For example, an elderly parent whom the deceased supported, or a disabled adult child dependent on the deceased, would each receive $36k–$69k based on age. Additionally, if a dependant is a person with a disability (unable to work), they receive an extra $34,076 on top of the base dependent amount.
   • Non-Dependent Family: If a fatally injured person leaves no spouse or financial dependants, ICBC provides a small default benefit to immediate family. In such cases, each surviving parent or adult child of the deceased (who wasn’t financially dependent) is given $17,346 as a lump sum (this is essentially a token amount acknowledging the loss, even though the family member did not rely on the deceased for support).

These Enhanced Care death benefits are preset by regulation, effectively a “chart” of pre-set amounts that apply regardless of the actual impact on the family. They replace what used to be determined through court in wrongful death lawsuits. Lawyers note that these fixed benefits are often far lower than what could be obtained under the old tort system for a deceased breadwinner. In fact, for families of victims of the Lapu Lapu tragedy, it’s estimated the new benefits will amount to only “tens of thousands of dollars” per child, roughly one-quarter to one-third of what the family might have recovered in a lawsuit under the previous system. This gap is discussed further in the comparison section below.

Limits Under the Wrongful Death Law

British Columbia’s Family Compensation Act (FCA) is the statute that governs wrongful death claims, i.e. lawsuits by family members when someone’s death is caused by another’s negligence or wrongdoing. The FCA is widely criticized as outdated and extremely limiting. Key points about the FCA as of 2025:

• Pecuniary Losses Only: The FCA limits recovery to pecuniary (financial) losses suffered by the survivors. This means family members can claim actual economic contributions lost due to the death – for example, the portion of the deceased’s income that would have supported the family, the value of lost household services, loss of future inheritance, etc. The law’s purpose is to put dependants in the financial position they would have been in had the death not occurred. While this can be substantial if the deceased was a primary breadwinner, it requires detailed proof and calculations. Crucially, no damages are allowed for grief, mental anguish, or loss of companionship under the FCA. In other words, there is no compensation for the emotional pain and suffering of losing a loved one – the law views such non-economic loss as “not recoverable.”
• No Statutory Bereavement Awards in BC: Unlike some provinces, BC’s FCA sets no fixed awards for the spouse, children, or parents of a deceased. For example, Alberta’s Fatal Accidents Act provides a set amount for bereavement: about $82,000 to a surviving spouse or parent, and $49,000 to each child (figures periodically adjusted). BC has no equivalent automatic bereavement payment. A reform bill introduced in BC in 2011 proposed adding such amounts (e.g. $75,000 to a spouse, $75,000 to split between both parents, and $45,000 per child), but this was never enacted. As of 2025, therefore, the FCA offers no prescribed dollar amounts for loss of a spouse/child/parent – any recovery must be proven as actual financial loss. In many cases (death of a child, an elderly parent, or anyone not supporting others financially), this means families recover little or nothing because there is no income to base a claim on. This harsh result has led advocates to say that under BC law these lives are treated as having “no value” in court compensation.
• Funeral Expenses: The FCA does at least allow families to recover reasonable funeral and burial costs from the wrongdoer. In a car accident context, however, ICBC’s no-fault benefits now already cover funeral expenses up to ~$10.6k, so a lawsuit for those costs is usually unnecessary.
• Family Members Who Can Claim: Only the deceased’s spouse, children, or parents (including common-law spouse and certain step-family) are eligible to claim under the FCA. Siblings or other relatives cannot sue for wrongful death benefits in BC. If multiple family members are eligible, there is just one collective lawsuit (brought by the estate on behalf of all) and any award is divided among them.

It is critical to note that with the advent of ICBC’s Enhanced Care in 2021, the ability to bring an FCA lawsuit for motor vehicle deaths has been virtually eliminated. By law, you cannot sue the at-fault driver for wrongful death if the death was caused in a motor vehicle accident, except in very narrow circumstances (criminal conviction – see next section).  Families are essentially limited to the benefits prescribed by ICBC. That means all those scheduled benefits (funeral, grief counseling, lump sums) discussed in the Enhanced Care section have supplanted the wrongful death lawsuit for motor crashes. If a victim died in a car incident, the family typically cannot pursue additional damages in court, even if the ICBC benefits fall short of their true financial losses. The total compensation under Enhanced Care for a fatality is often a small fraction of what a court might have awarded previously for loss of future earnings. Families of the Lapu Lapu tragedy, for example, may receive only modest lump sums (perhaps $50–$100k per family in some cases) instead of potentially several hundred thousand dollars had civil suits been possible.

No Compensation for Pain and Suffering Unless Driver is Criminally Responsible

One of the most significant limitations of BC’s no-fault system is the elimination of “pain and suffering” damages for accident victims. In a traditional tort claim, an injured person (or the family of someone killed) could seek non-pecuniary damages, a money award to recognize physical pain, emotional suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. Under Enhanced Care, ICBC provides no equivalent benefit for pain, suffering or loss of amenity. All compensation is focused on economic losses and care. The only way to obtain money for pain and suffering now is to step outside the no-fault regime by meeting a specific exception: the at-fault driver must have committed certain serious Criminal Code offences.

• The Criminal Conviction Carve-Out: When it created Enhanced Care, the BC government included a narrow legal exception allowing lawsuits in cases of criminal drivers. If the at-fault driver is convicted of a prescribed Criminal Code offense related to the crash (such as impaired driving, street racing, or in the Lapu Lapu case, potentially serious charges like dangerous driving or murder), then victims may sue that driver for damages not covered by ICBC. In such a lawsuit, one can claim non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering) and potentially punitive damages against the offender. This is the only scenario where pain-and-suffering compensation is available for motor vehicle accidents post-2021. However, even this path has practical challenges and limitations:
  • No-Fault Benefits Remain Primary: Even if a lawsuit is allowed, ICBC’s accident benefits still cover the victim’s medical bills, income loss, etc. The lawsuit would be only for additional damages like pain and suffering or punitive awards. There is no double recovery – for example, one cannot sue for lost wages that ICBC already pays for. Essentially, the tort claim would be mostly for the intangible losses (since tangible losses are largely handled by ICBC).
  • Conviction Required: The exception kicks in only upon conviction of the driver. This means the victim must wait until the criminal process concludes and the driver is found guilty. This can take years, and if the driver is not convicted for any reason, the right to sue never arises. Notably, if the driver is found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) due to mental illness (i.e. not convicted of a crime), then by law the exception does not apply. In the Lapu Lapu incident, for example, if the accused driver were to be found NCR due to a mental disorder, the victims’ families would not be able to sue for pain and suffering at all – they would be confined to the ICBC no-fault benefits, despite the horrific losses. The relevant statute (Insurance Vehicle Act, s. 116) specifically requires a criminal conviction for civil action to be permitted. This creates an “all or nothing” situation dependent on the outcome of criminal court.
  • Limited Practical Recovery: Even when a lawsuit is allowed (say the driver is convicted), the actual ability to recover significant money is dubious. Under the old ICBC system, the at-fault driver’s insurance policy would cover the damages awarded in a lawsuit. However, under the new model, ICBC generally does not indemnify a convicted criminal driver for pain and suffering awards (the driver effectively loses insurance coverage for those illegal acts). Any court-awarded non-pecuniary or punitive damages would likely have to come from the offender’s personal assets. If the driver is not wealthy (which is often the case), then even a successful lawsuit may result in no actual payout. In sum, the criminal-conviction exception is largely symbolic, it offers a chance at justice on paper, but rarely yields substantial compensation in reality. It also delays any closure for victims, as they must await the outcome of criminal proceedings and then civil proceedings, potentially fighting for years.
• No Pain & Suffering for Families of Deceased: It’s worth emphasizing that wrongful death claims in BC have never included pain and suffering for surviving family under the FCA, and this remains true. Even if a driver is convicted, the estate of the deceased might claim the victim’s pre-death pain and suffering (if the victim survived for a time before passing), but the family members’ own grief is not compensable in a lawsuit except via statutory bereavement damages, which BC lacks. The criminal driver exception doesn’t change the categories of damages available in wrongful death; it only lifts the bar on suing the driver. Since the FCA doesn’t allow family claims for grief, a conviction would mainly allow the deceased’s estate to sue for non-pecuniary damages the victim could have claimed if they had lived (which is often minimal if death was instantaneous) or possibly for punitive damages (which courts are hesitant to award if the driver was already punished criminally). In other words, for fatal cases, even the rare right to sue may not translate to meaningful compensation for the bereaved.

In summary, pain and suffering compensation has been eliminated for the vast majority of motor vehicle victims in BC. Only in extreme cases of criminal wrongdoing can victims or families seek those damages, and even then, collection is uncertain. This was a deliberate trade-off of the no-fault scheme: it prioritized guaranteed care benefits and lower premiums over full civil accountability. As a result, many victims feel the system “re-victimizes” them by denying acknowledgment of their suffering.

Comparison of No-Fault 2025 vs. Pre-2021 Tort-Based System

The following table highlights the differences in available compensation between the current Enhanced Care no-fault regime and the previous tort-based insurance system (prior to May 2021). This is particularly focused on areas of pain and suffering and wrongful death claims, which have seen the most change:

Notes: All figures are in Canadian dollars and reflect 2025 values where applicable. sources confirming these details include ICBC documentation and BC legislation analysis.

Summary

The 2025 Lapu Lapu Festival tragedy highlights a painful reality in British Columbia’s current system: survivors and families receive limited financial compensation for catastrophic losses. Under ICBC’s Enhanced Care no-fault scheme, victims are assured coverage for medical care and some income support, but they cannot claim damages for pain and suffering, and families of those killed are restricted to preset benefits that often fall far short of their actual losses. The Family Compensation Act offers no relief for the deep grief of losing a loved one – it never has, and the move to no-fault has further constrained even the economic claims that were once possible. Only if an at-fault driver is found criminally responsible (through conviction) can victims step outside this regime, and even then, practical recovery is uncertain.

As of 2025, BC’s approach remains that caring for immediate needs outweighs tort-based compensation. The Trial Lawyers Association, argue that this re-victimizes those hurt or bereaved by denying them full justice and recognition of their suffering. The comparison with the pre-2021 system shows a trade-off: some benefits (medical/rehab coverage) are now more accessible, but the ability to obtain comprehensive damages, especially for intangibles like pain, trauma, or the loss of a family member’s companionship,  has been sharply curtailed. Families like those of the Lapu Lapu victims face the added frustration that, in legal terms, their loved ones’ lives seem to have a low predetermined value under the no-fault schedule.

This article is based on British Columbia law as of 2025, including the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and regulations (Enhanced Accident Benefits) governing ICBC’s no-fault scheme, and the Family Compensation Act (RSBC 1996, c.126) for wrongful death. The information in this publication is intended to provide general information only and is not intended to provide coverage, legal or professional advice. You should follow the more detailed wording and requirements of current applicable laws and regulations, even if they contradict the wording and requirements set out in this publication.