The Conservative Party’s victory in the October 24, 2026 provincial election has renewed debate over the treatment of people injured in motor vehicle accidents. The Conservatives promised to replace ICBC’s no-fault regime with a hybrid model, retaining affordable benefits while restoring a right to sue for some seriously injured people. It is about whether British Columbians should lose access to the courts when another person’s negligence changes their lives.
Individual Justice and the Value of Human Life
Since May 1, 2021, ICBC’s Enhanced Care system has generally prevented injured drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians from suing negligent motorists. Limited exceptions remain. Instead, injured people receive treatment and income-replacement benefits, regardless of fault.
These benefits are critical but operate under strict limits. Compensation for pain and suffering is generally unavailable, and income replacement is capped. The same collision might end a surgeon’s career, prevent a parent from caring for children, or leave a young person with lifelong psychological injuries.
Under the former tort system, a judge or jury could assess the consequences for each individual based on the evidence. Restoring meaningful access to that independent assessment is an important civil rights issue.
Accountability for Negligent Drivers
Civil law also recognizes personal responsibility. Where a driver’s negligence seriously injures someone, the injured person should be able to seek compensation from the responsible party.
No-fault insurance does not eliminate accountability. At-fault drivers may still face higher premiums, fines or criminal penalties. However, those consequences do not compensate victims for their individual losses.
A well-designed hybrid system could restore civil accountability while avoiding litigation over every minor injury.
The Insurance Promise: Peace of Mind
No-fault supporters reasonably point to quicker treatment, predictable benefits and reduced legal costs. Those advantages should be preserved.
But peace of mind means more than receiving immediate treatment. It means knowing that if an accident permanently destroys your livelihood, an independent court can assess your full losses. Enhanced Care decisions can be challenged, including before the Civil Resolution Tribunal, but that process is not equivalent to a lawsuit seeking damages for the negligence that caused the injury.
What Should a Hybrid System Look Like?
BC should not follow Saskatchewan’s approach, where no-fault insurance is the default and individuals must actively elect to preserve their right to sue for pain and suffering. This approach places the burden on citizens to protect a fundamental civil right that should never have been taken away in the first place.
Most people do not contemplate the devastating consequences of a serious injury until it happens to them. By then, it is too late to make that choice. The right to sue a negligent driver should be the starting point, not an option buried in an insurance application.
It is important to restore the right to sue a negligent driver by default, while allowing individuals to voluntarily choose no-fault coverage after receiving clear information about the rights and compensation they would be surrendering. The principle is simple: civil rights should not have to be purchased, requested or elected. They should be presumed to exist unless an individual knowingly chooses otherwise.
The unanswered questions are crucial: Who can sue? Which damages are recoverable? Will treatment continue during litigation? How will premiums and legal expenses be controlled?
Importantly, a threshold confined to “catastrophic” injuries could exclude people with disabling chronic pain or serious psychological injuries. Such distinctions must not recreate the unfairness that reform is intended to address.
