Media
Releases
May 12, 2005
Pre-Election Survey for Provincial Candidates
Seven Questions from the Coalition Against No-Fault in BC
Responses from the parties are given below each question
The Coalition Against No-Fault (CANF) was founded, in 1996, as a community awareness project aimed at preventing the implementation of no-fault auto insurance in British Columbia. Since then, CANF’s diverse membership has led several efforts to guard against the diminishment of legal rights for innocent individuals.
In our most recent campaign, we worked to protect BC’s laws of civil liability from being adversely effected. This effort got underway after the Attorney General’s Ministry undertook its Civil Liability Review. Several areas of law stood to be effected as a result of this process. In the end, by May 2004, the review did not lead to new or amended legislation.
Member groups remain aligned with the goal of protecting the legal rights of injured citizens, those harmed through no fault of their own. As such, CANF is opposed to all forms of legislation that strip away legal rights. CANF is made up of a variety of community-based interests, from advocates for people with disabilities to those fighting on behalf of consumers and their rights.
The following outlines seven items that have been of interest to CANF during its nine-year existence. They remain areas of concern.
NO-FAULT AUTO INSURANCE: British Columbia’s tort system compensates losses fairly and discourages negligent conduct. Injured persons have access to the courts to ensure they are compensated properly. Large insurance companies in Canada have been pressuring provincial governments to move away from the tort system and toward forms of no-fault insurance. The results of no-fault have been detrimental to innocent citizens. Shifts to no-fault can provide huge profits for insurance companies, but innocent injured citizens are often left to fend for themselves. No-fault leaves injured people without fair compensation and without access to the courts.
Question 1: If elected, would you oppose any introduction of no-fault auto insurance in British Columbia?
Green Party: Yes
NDP: Yes
BC Liberals: The BC Liberals opposed no fault insurance when the NDP attempted to bring legislation forward and we will not implement no-fault auto insurance in British Columbia.
NO-FAULT THRESHOLDS & DEDUCTIBLES: There are various forms of no-fault insurance. Thresholds force people to exceed a certain dollar amount in injury costs (monetary threshold) or meet strict definitions of injuries (verbal threshold) before they are permitted to seek justice from the courts. Deductibles protect those liable for the damages from paying a significant portion that would otherwise be awarded to the injured person. Threshold systems deny justice to large numbers of innocent injury victims. They increase bureaucracy, litigation and taxpayer costs. Deductibles arbitrarily reduce all compensation awards. They are a form of taxation. Large insurance companies benefit. This tax permits insurance companies to profit at the expense of injured parties, people who cannot afford the loss. Thresholds and deductibles are particularly devastating when they work in tandem against an injured person. Innocent people are forced to absorb the costs of being injured.
Question 2: If elected, would you oppose any introduction of no-fault thresholds and deductibles in British Columbia?
Green Party: Yes
NDP: Yes
BC Liberals: A BC Liberal government has no intention of moving to a system of no-fault insurance in British Columbia, or of introducing caps, deductibles or thresholds.
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY: In law, joint and several liability enables innocent victims to recover fully from damage and losses caused by the negligent acts of others, even if one of the negligent parties is bankrupt or cannot be located. Victims can be compensated from one or more of the negligent parties. It is a long-established legal principle that functions to ensure innocent victims are made whole for their losses, while also encouraging individuals and companies to implement sound business practices and partnerships. Joint and several liability serves to protect the interests of society. It makes people and companies accountable and provides victims with the best opportunity of being compensated properly. Without it, many people would be unfairly limited in their ability to recover from damage suffered through no fault of their own.
Question 3: If elected, would you oppose attempts to abolish joint and several liability in favour of another form of civil-liability law?
Green Party: Yes
NDP: Yes
BC Liberals: The BC Liberal government's goal is to ensure that every law in British Columbia is as just, clear, predictable and effective as possible.
In 2002, we began a public discussion on whether civil liability law in British Columbia should be reformed, including vicarious liability, joint and several liability, changes to the Limitation Act, and structured settlements. We received submissions from a large number of stakeholders, including local governments, those involved in the building industry, and victims groups including people affected by leaky condos.
We carefully considered all of the issues, perspectives, and the experience in other jurisdictions. After careful review, we decided not to proceed with law reform in these areas.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: It is very important for victims to be able to hold one party responsible — vicariously liable — for the harmful actions of another in cases where the relationship between the parties is relevant. For instance, a parent can be held liable for the harmful actions of their child and employers can be held liable for the actions of their employees. This ensures victims can be compensated for harm done to them. It also compels individuals and businesses to be accountable for any risks they create and therefore encourages careful scrutiny of behaviour and business practices.
Question 4: If elected, would you oppose the elimination of vicarious liability?
Green Party: Yes
NDP: Yes
BC Liberals: See answer to Question 3.
THE LIMITATION ACT: The Limitation Act sets out the deadlines for pursuing legal actions. Sometimes the effects of wrongful acts are not fully realized and understood until many years after the fact. The Limitation Act helps ensure that people in this situation are able to hold guilty parties responsible by seeking compensation for harm suffered. A reduction in the ultimate limitation period, from 30 years to 10 years, was discussed as part of the BC Government’s review of civil-liability laws, but it did not lead to a change in legislation.
Question 5: If elected, would you oppose changes to The Limitation Act that would shorten the deadline for pursing legal actions?
Green Party: Yes
NDP: Yes
BC Liberals: See answer to Question 3.
CAPS ON DAMAGE AWARDS: People injured through the wrongful actions of others are entitled to compensation for economic losses (e.g. lost income and the costs of care) and non-economic losses (e.g. pain, suffering and diminished lifestyle). However, an inadequate cap has long existed on pain and suffering awards in Canada. Damage awards should not be restricted by an artificial means, i.e. a pre-set limit, a legislated cap.
Question 6: If elected, would you support legislation empowering judges and juries to set the amount of compensation they determine to be fair and appropriate, without being restricted by a cap on damages? In essence, would you support the abolishment of caps?
Green Party: Yes
NDP: Yes
BC Liberals: This question relates to detailed aspects of the current law of personal injury compensation in British Columbia, which is a mixture of common law and statute law. The BC Liberals think it is important to engage law reform agencies, the legal profession, and other affected groups in a careful consideration of each of these issues. We believe that the Coalition Against No-Fault in B.C. has an important role to play in this consideration, and in helping to preserve and protect the basic principles of the tort system.
STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS: A structured settlement refers to the way in which an innocent person is compensated, by the parties responsible, for harm suffered. The BC Government’s review of civil-liability laws explored the idea of forcing courts to impose structured settlements. In essence, this would amount to having an allowance passed down to an innocent person, a person who deserves to make decisions for them self or obtain help from those they trust.
Question 7: If elected, would you oppose courts being forced to impose structured settlements?
Green Party: Yes
NDP: Yes
BC Liberals: See answer to Question 3.