A British Columbia tribunal sided with ICBC, ruling a self-employed crane operator earning above the insurable income cap was owed no income replacement benefits.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal released its decision in Gale v. ICBC, 2026 BCCRT 901 on June 11, 2026, offering claims professionals a clear look at how income replacement benefits work for high-earning, self-employed claimants under British Columbia's enhanced care regime.
Jesse Gale, the sole shareholder, director and president of Sequoia Crane Services Ltd., was rear-ended while stopped on October 30, 2023. He sought income replacement benefits from ICBC for the period October 30, 2023 to May 14, 2024, arguing the insurer wrongfully denied his claim. ICBC countered that Sequoia kept operating without any loss of income, that Gale had hired an employee to run the crane, and that he continued as owner, manager and significant shareholder.
Tribunal Member David Jiang dismissed every claim. The Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the IRBR set out how ICBC calculates a full-time earner's benefits using gross yearly employment income. For Gale, the two prescribed methods produced figures of $141,002 and $168,296. Both exceeded the maximum yearly insurable income, which ICBC put at $109,000 for the relevant period.
That cap decided the case. Sequoia's net business income for the 2024 fiscal year was $160,174. Even using the calculation most favourable to Gale, his loss came to $8,122. But because his earnings sat above the $109,000 ceiling, the tribunal found ICBC owed nothing. Jiang noted that an insured can raise that limit by buying optional coverage from ICBC, but Gale had not purchased it.
Gale argued the result was absurd. Jiang disagreed, writing "I do not find this result absurd on its face." He found the provisions were meant to limit ICBC's responsibility for higher earners, with optional insurance available for those wanting greater income security.
The tribunal also rejected Gale's argument that his business income was passive and that his earnings during the period should be treated as zero. Medical records from his family physician showed he kept working modified duties and hours. Jiang found Gale held employment throughout, either by working or by maintaining an active, authoritative influence over Sequoia's day-to-day financial and administrative operations.
On the bad faith claim, Gale sought $5,000, saying ICBC wrongly withheld and delayed benefits. Jiang set out the governing framework: an insured must generally establish a breach of duty under the insurance contract before a bad faith action can proceed. Because the underlying benefits claim failed, the bad faith claim could not stand. He also found ICBC's approach appropriate, noting it was unclear at the time whether Gale had suffered any income loss.
Gale's claims were dismissed. He was ordered to pay ICBC $25 in tribunal fees.
