Date Issued: January 18, 2023

File: SC-2022-001664

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Beyene v. Forrester, 2023 BCCRT 51

BETWEEN:

NATHNAEL BEYENE

APPLICANT

AND:

SIERRA FORRESTER and INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

 

RESPONDENTS

 

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Andrea Ritchie, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This small claims dispute is about liability for a November 2020 motor vehicle accident between the applicant, Nathnael Beyene, and the respondent, Sierra Forrester[1]. Mr. Beyene says the respondent insurer, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), improperly and unfairly held him 100% responsible for the accident and asks that ICBC’s fault determination be reversed. Mr. Beyene also seeks $3,000 for future increased insurance premiums “that will likely result” from ICBC holding him solely responsible for the accident.

2.      Sierra Forrester says ICBC properly assessed liability. ICBC says it acted reasonably in its investigation and determination of fault and says that Mr. Beyene’s requested remedies are outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT).

3.      Mr. Beyene represents himself. An authorized ICBC employee represents both respondents.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the CRT’s formal written reasons. The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says that the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says that the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

7.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute, the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money, or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUES

8.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Did ICBC breach its statutory obligations investigating the accident and assigning fault?

b.    Who is responsible for the accident? If not Mr. Beyene, what is the appropriate remedy?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant Mr. Beyene must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). While I have read all of the parties’ submitted evidence and arguments, I have only addressed those necessary to explain my decision. Apart from his submissions, Mr. Beyene did not provide any documentary evidence, other than a diagram of the accident location.

The accident

10.   On November 16, 2020, Mr. Beyene was traveling eastbound on Lougheed Highway in Mission, British Columbia, when he turned right onto northbound Hurd Street. Mr. Beyene says he had a green light to turn and while he pulled into his lane, Sierra Forrester turned left off Lougheed Highway onto Hurd Street and into his lane of travel. The vehicles collided in a side-swipe type impact.

11.   In contrast, Sierra Forrester says they were driving on Rai Street and turned left onto northbound Hurd Street. Sierra Forrester says they had a green light and drove straight through Lougheed Highway to continue northbound on Hurd Street when Mr. Beyene took a wide right turn into Sierra Forrester’s lane of travel.

12.   There were no witnesses other than the parties, and no dash camera or other video footage available.

Did ICBC breach its statutory obligations in investigating the accident and assessing fault?

13.   As noted, Mr. Beyene says ICBC unfairly held him solely responsible for the accident. Specifically, he says the “ICBC arbiter” made unreasonable and unfair assumptions against him and was “biased towards the other side of the story”. Mr. Beyene did not provide a copy of the decision he refers to or quotes.

14.   ICBC says it relied on all available information that was provided by both Mr. Beyene and Sierra Forrester when investigating the accident and determining liability.

15.   To succeed against ICBC, Mr. Beyene must prove on a balance of probabilities that ICBC breached its statutory obligations, its contract of insurance, or both. The issue is whether ICBC acted “properly or reasonably” in administratively assigning sole responsibility for the accident against Mr. Beyene (see: Singh v. McHatten, 2012 BCCA 286).

16.   ICBC owes Mr. Beyene a duty of good faith, which requires ICBC to act fairly, both in how it investigates and assesses the claim, and in its decision about whether to pay the claim (see: Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 at paragraphs 22, 55, and 93). As noted in the Continuing Legal Education Society of BC’s “BC Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Practice Manual”, an insurer is not expected to investigate a claim with the skill and forensic proficiency of a detective. An insurer must bring “reasonable diligence, fairness, an appropriate level of skill, thoroughness, and objectivity to the investigation and the assessment of the collected information” (see: MacDonald v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2012 BCSC 283).

17.   Here, although Mr. Beyene feels ICBC’s decision was unfair to him, the evidence shows that ICBC took statements from the involved parties and reviewed the vehicles’ damage. Mr. Beyene does not say what ICBC should have done, other than agree with his version of events. So, while I acknowledge Mr. Beyene disagrees with ICBC’s fault assessment, I find he has not shown ICBC breached its statutory obligations or its contract of insurance. I dismiss this aspect of Mr. Beyene’s claims.

Who is responsible for the accident?

18.   For the following reasons, I dismiss Mr. Beyene’s claims in their entirety. I say this for two reasons.

19.   First, Mr. Beyene seeks an order that Sierra Forrester be held 100% responsible, or at least 50% responsible, for the November 16, 2020 accident. An order declaring who is responsible for the accident is known as “declaratory relief”, which is outside the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction. There are no relevant CRTA provisions that would permit me to make such a declaratory order as requested by Mr. Beyene, so I would decline to grant that remedy even if I found Sierra Forrester liable for the accident.

20.   Second, Mr. Beyene claims $3,000 that he says would be the equivalent of 5 years’ worth of increased insurance premiums. Mr. Beyene did not provide any evidence about whether or how much his insurance premiums will be impacted. Although he said he went to his insurance agent and they told him his insurance was “likely” to go up $35 to $45 per month, Mr. Beyene did not provide any supporting evidence, such as a statement from his insurance agent. On the evidence, I find Mr. Beyene has not proven his insurance premiums will increase, or when, or by how much.

21.   In summary, I find Mr. Beyene has not proven on a balance of probabilities that he is entitled to compensation for increased insurance premiums. So, I do not need to consider liability for the November 16, 2020. I dismiss Mr. Beyene’s claims.

22.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to the recovery of their tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses. As Mr. Beyene was not successful, I dismiss his claim for reimbursement of tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

23.   I dismiss Mr. Beyene’s claims, and this dispute.