What happened: A BC tribunal overturned ICBC's fault finding after a firetruck struck a motorist's car at a T-intersection
Who's involved: ICBC and a self-represented motorist in Port Coquitlam, BC
What's at stake: A 100%-to-0% fault reversal and $125 in tribunal fees
Why it matters: The tribunal found ICBC mischaracterised its own witness evidence to support a fault determination - a cautionary example for claims adjusters assessing competing driver statements
Where it stands: Decided on October 6, 2026; ICBC ordered to amend its internal records
A firetruck clipped a motorist's front bumper while turning left through a T-intersection in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. ICBC pinned 100% of the fault on the motorist.
A tribunal has now wiped that finding entirely.
In Gaggini v. ICBC, decided October 6, 2026, the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal found ICBC acted unreasonably when it assigned full responsibility to the driver whose car was struck by the turning firetruck. The problem, according to the tribunal, was not just the outcome - it was how ICBC read its own evidence.
The collision happened around 8:30 a.m. on March 11, 2024, at the intersection of Coast Meridian Road and Industrial Avenue. The motorist was heading east on Industrial Avenue, stopped at a stop sign, and inched forward to see oncoming traffic before making a right turn south. A firetruck was heading north on Coast Meridian and turning left onto Industrial Avenue.
Their paths should not have crossed. But as the firetruck swung left, its left side struck the motorist's front left bumper. Both vehicles suffered minor damage.
ICBC investigated and found the motorist 100% at fault. He asked for a review. ICBC upheld its decision.
Here is where the case turns. ICBC's detailed responsibility letter relied on section 186 of British Columbia's Motor Vehicle Act, which requires drivers to stop at a marked stop line. ICBC's position was that the motorist failed to do so.
The firetruck driver's emailed statement to ICBC told a different story. The driver wrote that they could not "recall the car stopping fully at the stop line." They also could not recall "if he was fully stopped at the time of impact or if he was rolling forward."
That is not the same as saying the motorist did not stop. But ICBC treated it as if it were. The tribunal found ICBC "mischaracterizes SO's statement" and that the fault decision "was not supported by the available evidence."
Having found ICBC's process unreasonable, the tribunal assessed fault from scratch. The motorist said he stopped at the stop line, crept forward for visibility, and stayed to the right side of the lane to prepare for his turn. The firetruck driver's account did not contradict this.
ICBC argued the motorist was the driver who had to yield - the one leaving a stop sign while the firetruck had the right of way on the through road. The tribunal pointed out the flaw: there was no reason for the motorist to expect a hazard from the firetruck, because the two vehicles' paths should not have intersected at all. The firetruck cut too wide on its left turn.
The tribunal drew on Donato v. Quach, a 2019 BC Supreme Court decision with near-identical facts - a right-turning driver struck by a left-turning vehicle at a T-intersection. In that case, the court found the right-turning driver had met every legal duty and bore no fault, because no safe evasive action was available to them.
The same reasoning applied here. The tribunal found the motorist was 0% responsible and ordered ICBC to amend its internal records. ICBC was also ordered to reimburse $125 in tribunal fees within 14 days.
The gap between "I don't recall" and "he didn't stop" is exactly the kind of evidentiary shortcut that can unravel a fault determination on review - a distinction worth keeping sharp for anyone handling competing driver statements.
