A tribunal cut a driver's fault to 60 percent after ICBC overlooked a new e-scooter rule in its liability call.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia has ordered the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) to revise a fault finding against a driver, after ruling the insurer's investigation overlooked a regulation governing electric kick scooters.
The dispute arose from an April 11, 2024 collision in Vancouver. The driver was travelling south on Laurel Street, approaching a stop sign at West 70th Avenue, when he overshot the marked stop line while turning right. A rider on an electric kick scooter, travelling on the sidewalk, began crossing Laurel Street and collided with the driver's vehicle.
ICBC investigated the crash, taking statements from the driver, his wife, who was a passenger, and the scooter rider, and reviewing the driver's dashcam footage. The insurer's adjuster held the driver 100 percent at fault, citing Motor Vehicle Act provisions requiring drivers to stop at marked lines, yield to oncoming hazards, and exercise due care. The driver requested a secondary review, but ICBC's detailed responsibility letter, called a CL722, maintained the full-fault finding.
The driver disputed the outcome before the tribunal, arguing ICBC had not given him a fair chance to participate in the secondary review and that he should be held only 50 percent responsible. Tribunal member Megan Stewart rejected the fairness argument, finding the driver had adequate opportunity to submit evidence.
However, Stewart found ICBC's investigation unreasonable for a different reason: it never addressed the Motor Vehicle Act's Electric Kick Scooter Pilot Project Regulation, which took effect April 5, 2024, just before the accident, and applies in Vancouver. The regulation bars riders from operating kick scooters on sidewalks unless a traffic control device permits it. Dashcam footage showed the scooter rider on the sidewalk with no evidence of permission to be there, despite the driver having raised the rider's legal responsibilities. In one email, the ICBC employee handling the review wrote only that "we (ICBC) use the Motor Vehicle Act."
Stewart inferred that ICBC failed to consider the applicable regulation when determining fault, and found this made the investigation unreasonable under the Accident Claims Regulation. She also relied on prior tribunal and court decisions to find that a breach of the sidewalk-riding rule is evidence of a failure to take appropriate care, and that a party breaching a traffic law takes on a heightened duty of care.
Under that standard, Stewart found the scooter rider partly at fault for entering the intersection without slowing down or checking for hazards, despite the heightened duty triggered by riding on the sidewalk. She rejected the driver's claim that the rider was speeding, calling it speculative and unverified.
On apportionment, Stewart found the driver more responsible overall, since he was required both to stop at the line and to yield the right of way, while the rider's breach related only to the sidewalk restriction. She split fault 60 percent to the driver and 40 percent to the rider.
ICBC was ordered to amend its internal assessment to reflect the 60 percent split, and to pay the driver $125 in tribunal fees within 14 days, plus post-judgment interest. The tribunal dismissed ICBC's own claim for reimbursement of its fees. The decision is validated and enforceable through the courts.
