Overly restrictive interpretation of a review process can prevent reconsideration.

Ron contacted our office after he was found 100% liable for an accident he had. He told us he sought a review of the decision via ICBC’s Claims Assessment Review (CAR) process where the liability determination was confirmed by a CAR arbiter. Unsatisfied, Ron asked ICBC’s Fairness Commissioner to review his dealings with ICBC. The Commissioner’s role is to provide an opportunity to be heard if an issue hasn’t been resolved through a manager or the customer relations team.

Ron told us he was surprised to learn that the Fairness Commissioner refused to look into his complaint stating the review that CAR had conducted was technically an arbitration so was outside of its jurisdiction. Ron argued that CAR is different from an arbitration under the provincial Arbitration Act.

We investigated and found that Ron’s position was in fact accurate. The definition of arbitration did not appear to capture CAR as described by ICBC.

As a result of our investigation ICBC agreed to no longer interpret the Claims Assessment Review process as a type of arbitration that is outside of its jurisdiction. Instead, the Fairness Commissioner agreed to review applications, including Ron’s based on the specific circumstances of the case.