On March 31, 2016, the Attorney General of British Columbia
bowed to concerns from ICBC, the province's public auto
insurer, and rescinded the amendments to the costs tariff and fees
that were to come into force on July 1, 2016. This was a
controversial decision by the government which came as a complete
surprise to the plaintiff's bar and caused B.C. Supreme Court
justices and senior lawyers to quit an important advisory
committee, which had been tasked with recommending changes to the
tariffs and the calculation of the approved expenses incurred
It appears that ICBC raised concerns that these changes could
increase the cost to defend motorists and could have an impact on
everyone's insurance rates. The B.C. government spokesperson
advised that that there will be further consultation, to understand
the impacts on ICBC and to give them a chance to make their case,
prior to a final decision on these changes. As such, the current
costs rules will remain unchanged until further notice from the
government. It may very well be the case that the changes to the
costs, with or without further amendments arising from the
consultation, may come into force at a later date. Keep an
eye out for these potential amendments and we will report on those
at the time at the time final decision is
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
The recent Preliminary Issue decision in Walsh and Echelon (FSCO A15-007448, August 31, 2016) confirms that an economic loss does not need to be demonstrated in order to be entitled to attendant care benefits.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Policyholders recently won a key victory at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co. as the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of a standard form...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).