British Columbia's top court has upheld a jury's loss-of-earning-capacity award against ICBC, ruling the auto insurer raised its key evidence objections too late.
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed ICBC’s appeal on June 16, 2026. ICBC had defended the claim as a third-party insurer after the claimant was seriously injured in a 2019 motor vehicle accident. He was a passenger in a vehicle stopped at a red light when another driver struck the vehicle at high speed.
After a nine-day jury trial that began March 31, 2025, the jury awarded the claimant $509,000 for past loss of earning capacity and $3,111,150 for future loss, along with $465,242 in non-pecuniary damages.
The fight on appeal centred on a group of tax records, the "Chinese Documents," that the claimant said documented income he earned in China from 2014 to 2017. Over those four years he earned the equivalent of roughly $1,411,056 CAD, averaging about $352,764 a year. That income underpinned his claims for past and future loss of earning capacity.
ICBC argued procedural unfairness in how the documents were admitted, improper hearsay use, credibility concerns, and a perverse verdict. The court found a fundamental problem: ICBC's only objection at trial had been to the documents' authenticity. The hearsay and procedural complaints were new arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
The court declined to entertain them. ICBC's counsel had not requested a voir dire, did not ask to cross-examine the claimant before the documents were marked as an exhibit, and agreed to the process the judge proposed. The decision noted that ICBC's own trial counsel had praised the proceeding as "one of the most efficient, well-organized trials" he had been involved in.
ICBC also sought to introduce a post-trial opinion from an accountant arguing the claimant was likely a Canadian tax resident who should have reported his Chinese income on his Canadian returns, which he did not. The court refused. His Chinese income and his Canadian tax returns had both been disclosed in discovery about two years before trial, so the supposed inconsistency was not a last-minute surprise.
Applying a deferential standard to jury awards, the court found the verdict supportable. Both the claimant and his wife had testified to his earnings in China, and that evidence went unchallenged in cross-examination. The award was lower than he sought and less than his China earnings would suggest.
For insurers and claims professionals, the ruling is a pointed reminder that evidentiary objections must be made when the evidence is tendered at trial. ICBC sought a new trial; the court dismissed the appeal.
