A FORMAL THANK YOU TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

---

Planned Changes to Civil Laws will Devastate Victims

Coalition Against No-Fault Rises to Fight Attorney General’s Review

Since late 2001, Attorney General Geoff Plant has been pushing for reform to BC’s laws of civil liability. The reforms in this case refer to non-criminal legal matters. Specifically, they refer to the way disputes are settled and how innocent people are compensated after wrongful acts lead to damage or other forms of loss. The Attorney General’s plans have the Coalition Against No-Fault (CANF) very concerned. Introduction of new legislation is planned for the fall.

To understand what is at issue and how changes to laws could effect you and your family, it’s important to answer the following five questions.

1. What is No-Fault Legislation?
2. What is the Coalition Against No-Fault?
3. What is Civil Liability?
4. What is the Attorney General's Civil Liability Review?
5. Why is the Coalition Opposed to the Civil Liability Review?

NO-FAULT LEGISLATION

No-fault legislation is any law or system that takes away rights of individuals, denies access to the courts and fails to provide proper compensation to innocent people.  

No-fault auto insurance, for example, pays some or all of an insured person's loss according to a strict set of rules. It also restricts the rights of innocent victims to seek justice through the courts. In fact, pure no-fault is designed to take away all rights of victims by denying them access to the courts. As a result, no-fault often leaves victims poorly compensated for their losses.

Consider what economics professor Jack Carr (University of Toronto) said about no-fault auto insurance. Carr completed studies on the issue and concluded that no-fault systems:

“Relieve negligent drivers of responsibility for the harm they impose on innocent victims”

“Result in more high-risk drivers on the road”

“Lead to high accident rates"

Now, think of the effects no-fault would have if put in place for other areas of law. With that in mind, consider Carr’s comments a warning against no-fault legislation of any kind. Wherever put in place, no-fault:

• Allows harm causers to escape responsibility for their wrongful acts
• Increases the risks of harmful incidents
• Increases the frequency of harmful acts

Carr is one of many informed professionals who have voiced disapproval of no-fault systems. Another is international consumer advocate Ralph Nader, a man who assisted CANF members in their initial campaign, several years ago, and recently helped anti-no-fault forces in other parts of Canada. Nader has been speaking against no-fault for many years. He has warned that the harmful effects of no-fault insurance are contagious into other areas of law if something isn’t done to stop politicians from putting no-fault in place.

The following information explains why the Coalition Against No-Fault was created in BC several years ago and outlines how the government’s current Civil Liability Review (CLR) led to the coalition being active at present. At this point, it’s safe to say that the CLR provides proof that Nader’s warnings were on the mark. No-fault legislation is set to invade other areas if nothing is done to stop the government from eliminating rights and denying compensation. In other words, bad things are ahead for innocent people if nothing is done to stop the Attorney General’s plans.


The Coalition Against No-Fault

The Coalition Against No-Fault in British Columbia (CANF) is made up of more than 160 organizations that are opposed to no-fault systems and no-fault legislation. Member groups represent a variety of community-based interests, including: advocates for people with disabilities and those looking out for consumers and their rights. CANF’s origin goes back to 1996, when several organizations rallied together to fight against the introduction of no-fault auto insurance. Specifically, CANF was created out of concern about the BC Government’s plans (along with ICBC’s desire) to replace the province’s auto-insurance system with a no-fault one. The threat of no-fault was a common rallying point for women's networks, seniors’ associations, student unions and those living or working within the disability community.

CANF was successful in its first challenge. The government of the day did not change the province's system of auto insurance. Since this initial success, coalition members have remained on guard against potential introductions of any no-fault laws or systems, regardless of the industry or area of legal responsibility they relate to. As a result, CANF members are opposed to strategies, systems or laws that eliminate the rights of individuals and deny them access to the courtrooms of our province. It is that simple. While no-fault laws may not read so simply, their effect is clear. And the outcome clearly isn’t fair to people harmed by others.

For a chronology of CANF’s recent efforts to oppose the Attorney General’s plans, go to CANF Members Fight Back: A Chronology

Civil Liability

Citizens, governments and corporations are responsible for compensating the people harmed by their reckless actions, careless practices or defective products. This responsibility – or accountability – is realized under the laws of civil liability. These laws guarantee very important rights and remedies to individuals who have been harmed through no fault of their own.

Civil liability laws are designed to compensate individuals for their losses. They also send a clear message that people, companies and governments will be held accountable for careless, reckless or negligent actions. This is done in the interest of justice and public safety. It is done in the best interest of society. Overall, the laws of civil liability provide a method for justice to be accomplished by holding wrongdoers accountable for their wrongful acts or harmful failures. When irresponsibility causes harm, the law holds those at fault accountable for what they caused or contributed to causing.

Without the protections provided by laws of civil liability, people would not have the ability to recover from losses they suffer due to deceptive acts, fraud, negligence or carelessness of others. With that in mind, any attempt to remove the power of existing civil liability laws is a dangerous threat to justice and to society as a whole. Changes are negative if they eliminate or weaken an innocent person’s ability to recover their losses.


The Attorney General's Civil Liability Review

Attorney General Geoff Plant identified six areas of BC’s civil liability laws that stand to be changed. To carry out this process, he issued a public consultation paper. It is known as the Civil Liability Review (CLR). A chronology of events is included on this website. Please refer to it so you can understand how things have developed and why people and organizations need to take notice.

See: Planting the Seed: A Chronology of Events

There is a common theme to the six areas discussed in the CLR. The items are united in the aim of removing rights of innocent people and replacing them with protections for governments and businesses that are responsible for harm caused. An overview of the six items/areas is included on this website.

See: How Our Laws Work Now and How They Could Change

From the beginning, Minister Plant referred to the CLR’s six items as law-reform projects. Many people saw this as evidence that “the review” had already drawn conclusions before the consultation paper was released, let alone received a single response. So, while the process was labelled a law review, it was more about law reform. While Minister Plant asked fundamental questions about civil justice, his remarks also formed conclusions about the province’s system of laws.

Did the CLR process deliberately lead groups and individuals exactly where the government wanted to go? That is matter of opinion held by some people who have watched the review process unfold. It is clear that, of the several concerns expressed by members of the Coalition Against No-Fault, a major one pointed to a process that took it for granted that a problem existed with BC’s civil liability laws. This assumption was made by the Attorney General and acted upon by his Ministry even though a problem had not been demonstrated.

With regard to laws, policies and reforms, the test should be a measure for fairness and justice. While striving for such goals, systems should preserve the rights of innocent people not get rid of them. That is a major reason why the Attorney General’s plans need to be stopped.


Why the Coalition is Opposed to the Civil Liability Review

Why is the Coalition Against No-Fault (CANF) opposed to the changes being pushed by the Attorney General’s Civil Liability Review (CLR)? How does this relate to no-fault? These are important questions to answer, especially at this time as the Attorney General is preparing to bring forward formal changes in the coming weeks and months. According to Minister Plant, introduction of new legislation is expected this fall.

CANF members are very concerned because the goals behind the Attorney General’s review are far more severe than no-fault auto insurance, the issue that eventually united more than 200 victims groups and advocates beginning in 1996. Under no-fault auto insurance, victims are still entitled to certain benefits, such as medical expenses and compensation for lost wages. Though pure no-fault auto insurance (as seen in Quebec and in some U.S. states) is regarded by many as one of the worst examples of injustice, it may not be nearly as bad for people as the changes proposed for civil liability laws in BC. Innocent people may not be able to hold guilty parties responsible for damage done to them.

---

Other Review Materials

Communication with Government

Mailout to MLAs, March 5, 2003

List of 180+ Organizations Supporting our Civil Liability Review campaign

{To download free Acrobat Reader software to read PDF files, go to http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html}