British Columbia's tribunal handed ICBC a clean sweep, dismissing an injured driver's bid for lifetime benefits, a new SUV, and added impairment payouts.
The decision in SH v. ICBC, 2026 BCCRT 857, issued June 2, 2026, gives claims professionals a detailed look at how the province's enhanced accident benefits system holds up when a claimant pushes against its limits.
The applicant, anonymized as SH, was injured on September 30, 2022, in a Langley, British Columbia, collision after rear-ending another vehicle on a highway. She sought further health care and rehabilitation benefits, permanent impairment compensation, income replacement benefits, and family enterprise benefits under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. ICBC argued it had already funded the benefits she was entitled to.
Tribunal Member Peter Nyhuus sided with the insurer on every issue.
On health care, the applicant wanted physiotherapy, kinesiology, massage therapy, and a gym membership funded for the rest of her life. Nyhuus found ICBC must pay benefits as they are incurred, not as a lump sum or an indefinite approval. He noted ICBC had already funded 324 treatments, including 323 physiotherapy sessions and one massage therapy session, and had denied none of her requests.
The applicant also pointed to an ICBC brochure promising "unlimited care and recovery" under the new system. Nyhuus found she had misunderstood it: lifelong benefits are possible, but only where an insured continually proves entitlement under the Enhanced Accident Benefits Regulation.
Her request that ICBC buy her an SUV also failed. The tribunal found the insurer reasonably exercised its discretion, noting her transportation had not changed since before the accident and that she had not pursued recommended counselling for driving anxiety. ICBC's offers to fund taxi use or reimburse mileage were reasonable.
On permanent impairment, ICBC had already paid $3,443.08 for a left knee meniscus tear. Nyhuus found further compensation premature because the applicant was awaiting knee surgery that could improve her range of motion. He accepted ICBC's position that her back and neck findings were degenerative rather than accident-related, and that her shoulder and ankle injuries needed more medical evidence before any payout.
The income replacement issue turned on an unusual fact. At the time of the crash, the applicant worked for an auto sales business owned by her common-law partner but had not been paid for roughly four months. ICBC categorized her as a "non-earner" and, during the dispute, paid her $18,148.11 and $32,211.92 for two benefit periods, plus $3,558.72 in interest. It deducted her Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, as the legislation requires. Nyhuus found no calculation error.
Finally, her family enterprise claim failed because she provided no evidence the business had hired replacement labour to cover her unpaid duties.
Nyhuus dismissed all the claims, while noting the ruling does not affect ICBC's ongoing obligation to provide the benefits the applicant is entitled to under the legislation.
