How lawful is the relation between ICBC & TReO...

ICBC seems to be able to withhold vehicle insurance for unpaid tolls.
As ICBC is the only insurance corporation authorized to issue mandatory basic liability insurance in BC, and subject to mandate to issue said insurance; does the ICBC's refusal to re-new insurance because of the TReO tolls constitute acceptance of liability if the driver proceeds to drive insurance-free?

If not, obviously a preposterous sounding concept, how lawful and on what authority is the relationship between ICBC <-> TReO? I mean is ICBC performing debt-collection services as a 3rd party contractor like any other collection agency? Or is this relationship contained in RSBC? RSC? Any other binding law/statute/regulation?

Well treo also feeds ICBC

Well treo also feeds ICBC information as well. If you have a sticker in your car for the bridge and go through New Westminster it's logged. ICBC can see your car going through that area. How do I know they went your car went through this road at this time and place. My answer was how do you know who was driving because it wasn't me. (I lent my car to my dad to goto a doctor's apointment) That shut them up quick. I simply took the treo sticker off my car. I took the plates off my car and buy day insurance when I want to use it. You get no toll with a paper plate if you have no plate on your car or treo sticker. The camera can't read the temp insurance plate and you get no toll.


So no plate, no treo sticker no bill... Now cost wise it makes no sense to buy temp insurance but if you have a negative insurance rating then it does make sense as it's much cheaper. If you have a discount it makes no sense. So I'm still waiting for my 3 dollar toll never got it....

What an outrageous question - well done!

When TREO was about to commence, my wife asked me to take care of the necessary details in order to set up the necessary payment procedures and so on to obtain a windshield sticker for her car; she's an executive who generally works in downtown Vancouver, but sometimes needs to attend meetings etc at her company's facility in Surrey, necessitating that trip across the new Port Mann bridge and the consequent toll.

This proved impossible.  Although I had all of her personal details, including of course credit card, name, date of birth, driver license number, vehicle registration and license etc ad infinitum, the person at TREO (who would only provide their first name, no last name or job position or return phone number - nothing to identify them) and although their database access was clearly considerable, refused to enable the transactions setup.  They were unwilling to call my wife at work to verify the information I was providing, repeatedly trotted out the same scripted excuses, and only after my firmest protestations and demands agreed to assist me to speak to their supervisor; which of course required leaving a message for some equally unidentifiable person who then passed on my complaint, eventually, to the Regional Manager who was actually quite helpful.  I mean, he had a last name, and a genuine Job Title/Description  and direct phone line, and everything.

He couldn't do anything, of course, except at least acknowledge that he understood my frustration, and agree that there was no reasonable excuse for their policies.

Later that same week (after my wife had been forced to take the time out of her day to provide all the same information that could only have been known to somebody who she had provided it to) a small item appeared in the Vancouver Sun advising that some TREO employee had been fired and charged for sharing confidential credit card information with a person or persons outside their organization.  Although I kept my eyes open, and subscribe to that Newspaper, I never did see a follow up article on what occurred next.  

Pardon me for ranting, and probably taking this a bit off topic.

So going back to your query about ICBC acting as a Collection Agency; well yes, that's what they do.  And not just for their own company, which would be understandable in the case of unpaid tickets or insurance premiums.  Do a search on Google for other items such as the Family Maintenance Support Program, or even Municipal Bylaw fines, and you may find that their empowerment to refuse to provide Driver License services.

As to whether you are asking, sincerely, whether any of this is likely to provide a legal excuse for driving without insurance, then I'll presume you're joking.  Not a chance.

All joking aside...

Here I am in the geographical center of GVRD, making my M-F commute to the north shore.

Before the new bridge: 15-20 min on average
After the new bridge: 30-40 min on average
Why? Because the bottle neck is now immediately at the exit from the Cassiar tunnel.
So since the new bridge went up 1.5 years ago, I have already lost around 23 days of my life in traffic thanks in-part to it.
(And minus the total traffic increase due to new ownership)
Also my ride is a lot less enjoyable as it was before.

I cross the PortMann about once or twice per year, both ways.
I have not put an RFID beacon on my car.
I was fully satisfied with the time it took me to cross that span before the upgrade.

Now, I am billed for a crossing I was able to cross for free, and I am charged an extra $2.30 every-time for not placing a computerized, near-vicinity-remotely readable device for tracking my vehicle. (Which is officially used for TReO only, however serves as a perfect potential evidence collection tool for placing readers at key points around the region for merit-less surveillance)

I have been paying road taxes at the pump - got my receipts. Taxes have increased at the pump since the bridge was built, and on-top I have to pay to cross where I was able to cross for free. How can I be lawfully put into a position of a greater loss, without an action, without reasonable/lawful inaction and without consent? In a democratic sociatey - by a popular vote. Vote did not happen, but I am now suffering a greater loss.
Thats my tort.

When an agency mandated (and the only one authorized to) refuses to renew law-required minimal liability insurance, in lieu of questionable debts to a 3rd party corporation, I simply would like to know where in the law the said "shaft" is written. If this is not properly organized/legislated, then by default any unlawful reason for ICBC to refuse issuing insurance when a good-faith seeker applies will constitute a degree of acceptance of liability.
Think about it:
- Mandated by law
- To issue insurance
- To all that apply
- Based on lawful regulation

Unlawfully refuse to issue = breaking mandate = liability

Obviously the insignificant loss from the tolls is not a grave financial matter for me - but I would like to know more on the premise of the loss.

Perhaps I too would like to charge automated tolls based on face-recognition of everyone who passes over a plot of land that I might own and to use ICBC as the enforcement agent for my shenanigans...

You're trying to draw conclusions ...

... on insufficient data, methinks.

For one thing, you and I both know that almost the entire stretch of Highway 1 from the 1st Avenue exit to around the Brunette exit has been a constant, massive construction zone for the longest time; no doubt in order to try to improve the expedience of your commute.  So to try and draw a correlation between your 'previous' journey time (i.e. prior to the Port Mann constuction) and your 'current' journey time without factoring this in is quite frankly misleading and somewhat irrelevant.  Sorry about that.

The legal question behind ICBC's apparent authority to refuse Insurance coverage - or, for that matter, Driver License Services - is another issue entirely; the fact that they have all of us by the short and curlies doesn't mean that it's righteous.

Have you tried asking them formally for an explanation/justification?  And I don't mean by getting upset with the counter clerk at the Driver Services Centre as so many people do (what a waste of time and energy, they don't set the policies, but are bound to follow them as a job condition) but by addressing the question to their organization, perhaps through your MLA with a copy of your correspondence to the newspaper in order to put them properly under the microscope?

Made a math boo boo

Total time wasted is ~4 days actually - can't edit the post
(375 days x 15 minutes / 60 / 24 = 3.91)

My commune begins at Boundary and ends on Westview, the only construction was the extra lane in the Cassiar tunnel.

Think of the highway as a series of funnels. A funnel preceding any specific point will "regulate" the flow of traffic at that particular stretch. The construction stretch you talk of (PortMann to Willingdon) was the biggest waste of money in local history of highway maintenance. The only good thing that came out of it was that the HOV lane got changed to a non-24-hour HOV designation. Otherwise that stretch through Burnaby was the best stretch of HWY1 in the area - 3 lanes, good pavement. If anything, making this stretch more conductive only exacerbated the Cassiar funnel.
That's why PortMann - Willingdon stretch is irrelevant - it was never a funnel. The closest "funnel" up the stream was the PortMann.

So all in all, the Cassiar funnel and the "lower bandwidth" stretch right after it is the next logical slowdown on HWY1.
So aside from the new ownership traffic, the current increase of commute time through that section is a direct result of the extra flow spilling from PortMann.

Asking people at a desk? Gah, I never get upset with front-line. I've worked customer service and I know the level of background-knowledge required to hold down the $12-$15 job: if you know too much you are in a wrong place.
I doubt any of the people at a driver's services could explain the legal position of ICBC <-> TReO.
Best I can get is "you have to pay you pleb".

I don't think writing to an MLA or raising stick in the media is effective.
Perhaps if I were adventurous I'd file a statement of claim at the provincial court for the amount I paid to TReO in lieu of getting insurance. I protest the tolls as an infringement on my economic position.

I was hoping DriveSmart would know something about this, in a straight forward and legally supported way. Why do you think I'm on this site - it's one of the very few no-BS places relevant to our local legal/social issues.


We should get together, sometime.

If you're inclined to meet up for a chat give me a call; coffee break for the five minute argument, lunch if you want the full half-hour.  604.401.3611

Being genuinely interested in your original question about ICBC authority to refuse services vs responsibility to provide them, etc, I did call the BCUC today, to see how much influence and authority they might have over that corporation.  They were helpful enough, but the person there that I spoke to seemed to think that only fixed (as in basic mandatory coverage, which only ICBC can provide in this province) insurance rates were under BCUC governance.  So other than the Superintendent's authority regarding licensing issues, including medical concerns, it doesn't seem apparent who they're answerable to up the chain.

TReO may be a similar type of creature, with great authority but little answerability.  I really don't know.


Submitted by E-mail

In addition to the answers from CompetentDrivingBC, the answer to the persons question is simply MVA section 26(1)(e).

A concessionaire is defined under the Transportation Investment Act.

Good Grief ...

... I should have been able to come up with that.  

Of course, it took you a while, eh? devil



Google Ads