A British Columbia tribunal has dismissed a mother's accident benefits claim against ICBC, ruling she failed the residency test for dependent parent status.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal released its decision in Khoe v. ICBC, 2026 BCCRT 828 on May 28, 2026. The case examined who qualifies for the higher tier of lump sum death benefits under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and how ICBC's funeral and grief counselling obligations are measured.
On June 6, 2024, JW was driving when a large rock entered her vehicle and the vehicle then struck a guardrail. She was transported to hospital and died of her injuries on June 10, 2024. JW had no spouse and no children. Her mother, Suk Kim Khoe, and her father, WY, were entitled to benefits as her surviving parents.
ICBC paid Ms. Khoe and WY each a $16,906 lump sum death benefit and paid $10,347 in funeral benefits, which the tribunal inferred went to WY. Ms. Khoe argued she should have received the larger dependent parent lump sum under IVA section 157, where the maximum payable under EABR section 48(2) is $89,306. She also disputed the funeral payment and sought grief counselling reimbursement.
The dependent parent definition in IVA section 113 requires that the parent resides with the deceased and that the majority of their financial support comes from the deceased. Ms. Khoe pointed to evidence that JW paid for groceries and covered the mortgage and strata fees on a condo Ms. Khoe and JW jointly owned. She submitted a November 28, 2025 statement from JW's friend and coworker AC describing JW's financial contributions to family expenses.
ICBC produced copies of Ms. Khoe's and WY's licenses showing a different address from JW's. The insurer argued JW's address was the jointly owned condo, not the parents' home.
Tribunal Member Amanda Binnie accepted that JW paid the mortgage and strata fees, but found only JW lived in the condo. That finding was supported by JW's banking statements, income tax documents, and the address she used with ICBC, alongside Ms. Khoe's separate address on her own tax filings and driver's licence. Ms. Khoe was therefore not a dependent parent under section 113. Binnie noted: "I must apply the legislation as it stands."
On funeral expenses, IVA section 160 requires ICBC to reimburse funeral and burial costs up to a maximum. EABR section 50 sets that ceiling at $9,130, subject to indexing under EABR section 8. ICBC had paid $10,347 - the indexed maximum. Ms. Khoe argued post-pandemic funeral costs were higher but provided no documentation of the actual amount paid. Binnie dismissed the claim and added that, even if the maximum had not been paid, the absence of receipts would have foreclosed any further order.
Grief counselling under IVA section 161 met the same fate. ICBC had offered to fund counselling, an offer WY rejected. It was unclear whether the offer extended to Ms. Khoe personally, but she had not shown she paid for counselling or sought funding ICBC refused. The tribunal noted ICBC remains willing to fund grief counselling if Ms. Khoe pursues it.
Binnie declined to award ICBC its tribunal fees, finding the insurer had delayed in providing evidence and submissions and unnecessarily prolonged the dispute.
