Karen Nishimura was a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a collision that caused her injury. During her recuperation she used up the banked sick time she had accumulated through her job. Realizing that she might need that sick time if she did not heal from her injury properly or that it would not be available to take as a benefit when she retired, she asked ICBC to compensate her for it.
ICBC refused, saying that it was only required to pay for income replacement benefits after the victim had exhausted all other compensation options.
Ms. Nishimura took action against ICBC via the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The tribunal decided for ICBC saying that current legislation did not require ICBC to pay benefits in the case where the victim had other compensation available.
The following quote is made from a recent article in Canadian Lawyer:
“The tribunal doesn’t explicitly say they agree that it was unfair. What Ritchie is saying is that ‘I acknowledge the submission that the legislative act was unfair,’” says Rory Johnston, a lawyer with Vancouver-based Warnett Hallen LLP. “What I do take away from that is that twice in that same paragraph, she writes ‘I am bound by the legislation,’ so I think you can read between the lines and say the tribunal member recognizes that there is some unfairness here but that her hands are tied in terms of her ability to actually adjudicate what is right and wrong in terms of what the claimant is entitled to.”
- Log in to post comments