An ICBC decision holding a driver fully at fault has survived tribunal review - even after the driver cited two court cases that never existed.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed the driver's challenge on July 10, 2026, finding she had not proved the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia acted improperly or unreasonably when it assigned her full responsibility for a Vancouver collision.
The accident happened on May 23, 2024. The applicant was driving west on a narrow street where vehicles were parked on both sides. As she passed a parallel-parked vehicle, her passenger-side mirror struck its open rear door. The other driver had been standing in the doorway, leaning in to unload groceries. There were no emergency responders, no dash cam footage, and no independent witnesses.
For claims professionals, the case maps out how a responsibility determination gets tested. Under the Accident Claims Regulation, a driver challenging ICBC must prove two things: that the insurer acted improperly or unreasonably in assigning responsibility, and that she was less responsible than ICBC assessed. Fail either branch, and the claim fails.
The applicant's main grievance was that ICBC flipped its position. She said she was initially told the other driver was fully at fault, only to be assigned 100 per cent responsibility herself after a secondary review requested by that driver. ICBC explained the shift: its first assessment rested on an error about the burden of proof, which it corrected on review.
The tribunal found nothing arbitrary in that. Rather than simply defer to the review request, ICBC invited the applicant to submit new evidence, re-examined the circumstances and the governing law, then reassessed. Tribunal Member Deanna Rivers found the insurer had gathered statements from both drivers and a witness, weighed the agreed facts and the Motor Vehicle Act, and reached a conclusion its file reasoning logically supported.
Central to the outcome was how ICBC applied two provisions. It found the open-door rule did not apply, because the door was already open before the applicant approached and had been opened safely. Instead, it relied on the due-care provision, concluding the applicant's failure to see the door was the only contributing factor.
The applicant's own evidence did not help her. She pointed to an example on ICBC's website, but the tribunal noted such examples are not binding and turned on different facts. She sent videos, but only after the investigation had closed, and they showed only the aftermath. And she "cited 2 court cases that do not exist" - authorities the tribunal confirmed were not real.
The decision restates a familiar standard: the tribunal reviews whether ICBC's reasoning is logically justified and supported by the evidence and law, not whether it would have reached the same result. Because the applicant did not clear the first branch, the tribunal never reached the question of apportionment.
ICBC was entitled to claim its tribunal fees but waived them. Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.
