Tribunal sides with ICBC in no-damage lane-change dispute, underscoring how much ground a driver must cover to overturn a liability call.
A British Columbia driver who insisted he was never part of a three-vehicle collision on Granville Street has lost his bid to overturn ICBC's finding that he was entirely at fault - a result that quietly reinforces how much deference tribunals give insurers when the claims file is tidy and the witness accounts line up.
In a decision issued on April 20, 2026, the Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed Hankai Liu's challenge to ICBC's determination that he was 100 per cent responsible for a November 9, 2022 collision in Vancouver. Liu's argument was simple: he said he wasn't really in the accident at all. He told the tribunal he had merely pulled over after hearing a bang behind him, to see if the other drivers needed help.
ICBC saw it differently, and so did the two other drivers. According to the other driver, identified in the decision as MW, Liu changed lanes from the left into the middle and clipped MW's left front fender, pushing MW's car into a taxi in the right lane driven by SS. SS told ICBC the same story, twice - first in November 2023 and again in a follow-up statement in May 2024 - describing how Liu's lane change had squeezed MW between the two vehicles. Liu, for his part, acknowledged changing lanes and hearing a noise, but maintained he hadn't hit anyone.
Complicating matters, nobody took photos at the scene, and later images of the vehicles showed no visible damage. Even so, ICBC concluded that Liu had breached section 151 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which bars drivers from changing lanes unless they can do so safely and without affecting another vehicle. Applying the familiar dominant-and-servient driver analysis, ICBC treated MW as established in the middle lane and Liu as the one who should have yielded.
Tribunal member Mark Henderson was unpersuaded by Liu's denial. Under section 10 of the Accident Claims Regulation, a driver challenging ICBC must clear two hurdles - showing the insurer acted improperly or unreasonably, and showing they are less at fault than ICBC assessed. Liu, who filed little beyond his Dispute Notice and did not respond to repeated outreach from tribunal staff, met neither.
Henderson found ICBC's investigation thorough enough: statements from all three drivers, a secondary review, a follow-up call to SS, attempts to reach two passenger witnesses Liu had named, and a review of the available photos. One passenger, XR, was eventually reached but could only confirm hearing a noise. That, the tribunal said, was an adequate inquiry.
For claims professionals, the case is a quiet endorsement of standard investigative practice - and a reminder that consistent, independent witness accounts can carry a liability finding even when the metal tells no story. Liu was ordered to reimburse ICBC's $25 in tribunal fees.
