A British Columbia tribunal ordered ICBC to repay an injured claimant after the insurer couldn't prove it had refunded a mistaken CPP deduction.
The May 6, 2026 ruling from the Civil Resolution Tribunal in Rasko v. ICBC, 2026 BCCRT 712 (CanLII) turned largely on the evidence ICBC chose to put forward - and the evidence it didn't.
Kristin Ashley Rasko was hurt in a motor vehicle accident on July 11, 2023. A self-employed full-time earner, she could no longer perform the essential duties of her job and qualified for income replacement benefits under British Columbia's Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the Income Replacement and Retirement Benefits and Benefits for Students and Minors Regulation (IRBR). The parties agreed on entitlement. They didn't agree on the math.
ICBC initially applied both formulas under IRBR section 4(1)(b) and determined Rasko's greater GYEI was $34,840, producing a weekly benefit of $480.31. Running the alternative formula under IRBR section 3(3), which looks at the 12 months immediately before the accident, the insurer calculated $968.51 weekly - limited by the section's $740 cap. Then in August 2025 - after Rasko shared more income documentation and business-structure information through the tribunal process - ICBC recalculated again under the self-employed formula in IRBR section 18(2)(b)(i), arriving at $1,007.83 weekly. With inflation indexing, the payment now sits at $1,078.36.
Rasko wanted more. She argued ICBC should "annualize" her 2023 pre-accident earnings, projecting roughly $107,282 for what she would have made had the crash not happened. Tribunal Member Alison Wake disagreed, finding the IRBR doesn't contemplate projected future income.
The insurer also came out ahead on the bookkeeping dispute. ICBC produced payment-schedule screenshots showing $147,506.09 in benefits paid. Rasko, working from bank-statement photos, receipts and handwritten notes, said she had only received $144,356.60. Wake preferred ICBC's records, calling Rasko's evidence "confusing and incomplete."
But on the CPP deductions, the scales tipped the other way. An October 1, 2025 email from ICBC's representative acknowledged the insurer had mistakenly deducted CPP twice - a $4,366.28 shortfall. A week later, on October 8, 2025, an adjuster told Rasko that ICBC had processed a "shortfall" of $4,366.28. Then a later, undated email said the payment was "not paid out separately" and instead "merged into the next review."
Rasko kept raising the issue. ICBC's response was a general statement that it was up to date on payments. No lump-sum entry in its records. No explanation of how the "merger" worked.
"ICBC is a frequent and sophisticated CRT litigant, and I find it ought to be aware of this requirement," Wake wrote, drawing an adverse inference against the insurer for failing to provide relevant evidence. She ordered ICBC to pay Rasko $4,433.18 within 30 days - covering the CPP shortfall and pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act.
Wake also rejected Rasko's bid for $7,560 in accounting fees and $30,683.65 in payroll taxes she said she incurred restructuring her business, finding nothing in the IVA or IRBR requires the insurer to cover such costs. A separate claim tied to a duplicate December 2025 payment - which ICBC offset against a later pay period - was dismissed.
For claims professionals, the message is straightforward: when a claimant flags a specific shortfall, a clean paper trail showing payment matters more than a general assurance that the file is square.
