The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provides coverage up to $200,000 for anyone who is injured by an uninsured motorist on a B.C. road or highway. This B.C. government fund is similar to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF), which is the ‘payer of last resort’ in Ontario when there is no other insurance available for injuries or property damage resulting from a motor vehicle accident that takes place in Ontario. Like the ICBC, the maximum payout for damages due to injury by the MVACF is $200,000. The MVACF and ICBC are also available to non-residents of the respective provinces.
Latest News Articles
FAIR does not accept responsibility for comments, opinions, statistical information etc. associated with the links listed below. Any opinions, points of view, etc. are not necessarily shared by FAIR.
For a complete list of recent articles, please go to our 'Media Articles' page under 'In the News'.
We are updating our site and we appreciate your patience.
Kapoor v Kuzmanovski, 2017 ONSC 1709 (CanLII)
Motion to Exclude Potential Jurors for Conflict of Interest/Challenge for Cause in Civil Jury Selection
[1] The plaintiff has brought a motion for:
(a) an Order excluding potential jurors who drive and pay for automobile insurance premiums or have automobile insurance premiums paid on their behalf from the jury pool in this action due to an inherent conflict of interst;
(b) in the alternative, an Order removing all potential jurors who are ratepayers of automobile insurance premiums from the jury due to an inherent conflict of interest;
(c) in the alternative, an Order permitting the Plaintiff to challenge potential jurors who pay for automobile insurance premiums or have automobile insurance premiums paid on their behalf for cause;
(d) in the alternative, an Order permitting the Plaintiff to challenge potential jurors who pay for automobile insurance premiums for want of eligiblity; and
(e) in the alternative, an Order striking the Jury Notices in this action.
Canada’s Privacy Commissioner (PIPEDA) and the insurer’s use of car accident victims personal information
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (PIPEDA)
“Our office is unable to find that a reasonable person would consider The Personal’s collection and use of credit score for preventing and detecting fraud during the auto insurance claim assessment process to be reasonable. In addition, while The Personal informed the complainant of the purposes for collecting and using his credit score, our Office finds that The Personal did not obtain meaningful consent from the complainant in light of its failure to advise that such collection and use was optional. Our Office further finds that The Personal is not being open about it’s policies and practices with respect to the collection and use of credit score during the auto insurance claim assessment process.”
Poverty Reduction Strategy – share your story
Clients not impacted by law society cap on referral fees
The Drumbeat of Procedural Litigation Cycle
Defence lawyers say their ideas to speed up courts being ‘met with silence’
The provincial government’s proposals to speed up the criminal justice system are nothing more than short-term fixes that don’t get to the root causes of delays, defence lawyers say.