2012AnnualReport Officeofthe

ICBCFairnessCommissioner

PeterBurns,Q.C. ICBCFairnessCommissioner

PublishedApril2013

2

WhoistheICBCFairnessCommissioner?

PeterBurns,Q.C.,wasProfessorofLawattheUniversityofBritishColumbia,wherehewasDeanofLawfrom1981to1992.HewasappointedQueen’sCounselin1984.Hisprimaryareasofteachingandresearchincludecriminallaw,torts,internationalcriminallaw,andinternationalhumanrights.HeretiredfromtheFacultyofLawin2003,butcontinuestoholdtherankofDeanemeritusandProfessoremeritus.

HehasalsoservedontheBCLawReformCommissionandwasaboardmemberoftheBCInternationalCommercialArbitrationCentrefor10years.

Hehasbeenaconsultanttovariousbranchesofgovernment,particularlyinthefieldsofInternationalHumanRightsandLawReform.HewasappointedtotheBoardofDirectorsoftheInternationalCentreforCriminalLawReformandCriminalJusticePolicy(Vancouver)in1982,isaformerPresidentoftheInternationalSocietyfortheReformofCriminalLaw,andwasamemberoftheUNOrganizationCommitteeagainstTorturefrom1987to2003,servingasChairfrom1988to2003.

HebeganhisappointmentasICBCFairnessCommissionerinApril2005.

3

FromtheFairnessCommissioner:ThevalueofaFairnessCommissioner’sofficeaspartofastatutorymotorvehicleinsurancecorporation,withamonopolyoveraportionofitsbusinessactivities,isreflectedinpartinthenumberofcasesthatitdealswith.Inthepastasteadystateofbetween150to185newcaseshastraditionallyreachedtheFairnessCommissioner’soffice,butin2012thenumberreached213.Thesecasesdonotreflectthecompletepicture,asover64percentofthecasesareresolvedbytheInsuranceCorporationofBritishColumbia(ICBC)CustomerRelationsdepartmenttothesatisfactionofthecustomeranddonotreachmeforreview.Aswell,sometimesIrefercasesbacktotheCustomerRelationsdepartment,withaviewtohavingICBCreviewitsdecision.Eachyear,severaloftheseresultindifferentdecisionsbeingreachedbytheCorporation,againtothesatisfactionofthecustomerconcerned.IamadvisedthatICBCsellsapproximately3millionpolicies,processesabout1.4milliondriver’slicencetransactions,anddealswith1millionclaims,annually.Againstthebackdropofthestatisticsofthisreport,againonethingstandsout.TheoverwhelmingmajorityofdecisionstakenbyICBCemployeesandagentsintheirdealingswiththeCorporation’scustomersarereasonableandfair.EveninthosecasesthatIdealtwithin2012,onlyonerequiredaformalrecommendationbaseduponalackoffairnessinthedecision‐makingprocessorthereasonablenessofthedecisionitself.Itisworthemphasizingthatmyjurisdictiongoestoproceduralfairnessonly.HastheCorporationinitsapplicationofitspoliciesandpracticesdealtwithacustomerfairly?Arethesepoliciesandpracticesfair?Ihavenojurisdictiontogobehindthestatutoryschemeitself.NorcanIsubstitutemyviewofwhatshouldhavebeenthedecisiontakenbytheCorporation,unlessIconcludethatitwasunreasonableinthecircumstances.IamverypleasedtoreporttotheBoardthatinthecasethatIreferredbackforanotherreviewtheresponseofICBCwasunreservedlypositive.Ineachinstance,appropriatechangestodecisionsorpracticeshavebeenmadeandthishasledtoabetterresultforthecustomer.In2012,therewerefivesuchcases,summarizedinAppendixB.IwouldalsoliketoexpressmyappreciationtothestaffoftheCorporation.Theyhavebeenpatient,instructive,andaboveall,cooperative,inpursuingthemissionoftheFairnessCommissioner’sOffice.________________________________PeterBurns,Q.C.ICBCFairnessCommissioner

4

ANNUALREPORTOFTHEICBCFAIRNESSCOMMISSIONER

April2013

TABLEOFCONTENTS Page ICBCFairnessCommissioner 2 FromtheCommissioner 31. Introduction 5 2. MissionStatement 53. RoleandAuthority 54. Whatistheprocess? 65. Highlightsof2012 86. FairnessCommissioner2012Statistics 9

AppendixA:RecommendationmadebytheFairnessCommissioner 14AppendixB:CasesresolvedbytheFairnessCommissionerwithout arecommendation 19AppendixC:CasesresolvedbyICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartment 23

AppendixD:Selectcases 26 AppendixE:Examplesofnon‐jurisdictionalcases 43 AppendixF:Statisticsfrom2010–2012 46

AppendixG:TermsofReferencefortheICBCFairnessCommissioner 48

5

IntroductionTheAnnualReportoftheICBCFairnessCommissionerisasummaryofhisactivitiesin2012.ThereportisarequirementoftheFairnessCommissioner’sTermsofReference(AppendixF).Thisreportincludes:

theconceptandelementsoftheOfficeoftheICBCFairnessCommissioner,withsomeexamplesofcustomercomplaintsandresolvedcases

statisticsfrom2012 TermsofReferencefortheICBC

FairnessCommissioner

MissionStatementToensurethatcustomersaffectedbyICBC'sproducts,servicesordecisionsaretreatedfairlyintermsofprocessandadministration.

RoleandAuthorityTheFairnessCommissioner’sroleistoinvestigate,conductreviews,andmakefindingsandrecommendationstoICBCmanagementand/ortheBoardofDirectorsregardingunresolvedcustomercomplaints.ThisincludesallcomplaintsinreferencetothefairnessofanICBCdecision,actionorpracticewhereICBCitselfhasnotsatisfiedthecustomerthroughitsinternalcomplaintresolutionprocess.TheOfficeoftheFairnessCommissionerislimitedinjurisdictionastheCommissionerdealswithissuesoffairnessintermsofprocessoradministration.TheCommissionerdoesnothavejurisdictiontodealwithdisputesthatrelatesolelytotheamountofafinalpaymentortheassessmentofliability.Thosearematterswherethecustomer,inmostinstances,hasarighttoaClaimsAssessmentReviewwithrespecttoliabilityoranArbitrationProcesswithrespecttovehicledamage.TheCommissionerdoesretainjurisdictiontodealwithanyabsenceoffairnessineitheroftheseprocesses.TheCommissionerhasthepowertoinsistontheproductionofanydocumentsorotherinformationfromICBCwhichheconsidersnecessarytoconductaninvestigationand,ifnecessary,takeevidenceunderoathorotherwisefromthecustomerorarepresentativeofICBC.

6

TheCommissionermustbe:

totallyindependent,inparticular,heisindependentofICBCandanypriordecisionsthatmayhavebeenmadebyICBC

impartialinallrespects accessibletothepublicinwritingandononline responsivetothosethatwritetohim

Whatistheprocess?

Customer

• Customer writestotheFairnessCommissionerwithhis/herconcern.

Fairness Commissioner

• IfICBC'sCustomerRelationsdepartmenthasnotpreviouslyreviewedthecustomer'sconcern,theFairnessCommissionerwillrequestthatCustomerRelationsexaminethecustomer’sissueandresponddirectlytothecustomer.

Customer Relations advisor

• AnICBCCustomerRelationsadvisorreviews,investigatesandrespondstothecustomer.

Customer

• Ifthecustomerfeelsthathis/herconcernshavenotbeenfullyaddressedbyICBC,thecustomercanasktheFairnessCommissionerforareviewanddecision.

Fairness Commissioner 

Liaison

• TheCustomerRelationsdepartmentprovidesadetailedsummaryreport(explainingthecustomer'sconcernandICBC'sattemptstoresolvetheissue)fortheFairnessCommissioner.

Fairness Commissioner

• TheFairnessCommissionerreviewsthecustomer'sconcernsalongwithICBC'ssummaryreport.HemayrequestameetingwithrelevantICBCstafformanagersinordertofullyunderstandICBC'spolicies,proceduresordecisions.TheFairnessCommissionerprovidesawrittendecisiontothecustomerandICBC.

7

Uponcompletionofhisreview,theFairnessCommissionermay:

referthematterbacktoICBCforreconsideration,asincasessummarizedinAppendixB.

makearecommendationtoICBCthatthecomplaintberesolvedinsuchmannerashedeemsappropriate,assummarizedinAppendixA.ShouldICBCrejecttheFairnessCommissioner’srecommendation,heisempoweredtotakethematterdirectlytotheBoardofDirectorsofICBC.IftheBoardrejectstherecommendation,theFairnessCommissionerisempoweredtotakethatmattertothepublicthroughthepresswhereappropriate.

dismissthecomplaintifhefindsnounfairnessonthepartofICBCoritsemployees,

asincasessummarizedinAppendixD.

8

Highlightsof2012Therewereanumberofimportanteventswhichtookplacein2012:1) TheFairnessCommissionermadeoneformalrecommendationtoICBCin2012.This

caseissummarizedinAppendixA.Incontrast,theFairnessCommissionermadenorecommendationsin2011,onerecommendationinboth2010and2009,andfiverecommendationsin2008.

2) TheFairnessCommissionerreferredfivecasesbacktoICBCin2012,whichwereresolvedwithoutthenecessityofaformalrecommendation(seeAppendixB).

3) 2012wasthefirstfull‐yearthatcustomerswereabletocontacttheFairness

Commissionerusinganonlinecomplaintform.ThisformwasaddedtotheFairnessCommissioner’swebsiteonJuly5,2011,andnow55percentofcustomerswishingtocontacttheFairnessCommissionerusetheonlineforminsteadofusingregularmail.

4) TheFairnessCommissionerreceivedatotalof213complaintlettersin2012.Thiswas

significantlyhigherthanpreviousyearsandthisincreasecanbemainlyattributedtotheriseintheuseoftheonlinecomplaintform.TheFairnessCommissionerreceived116onlinecomplaintsin2012comparedto47in2011(JulytoDecember2011).ThenumberofcomplaintsreviewedbytheFairnessCommissioneralsoincreasedin2012(98casescomparedto86casesin2011).Seegraphsonpage9.

5) ChangesmadetotheFairnessCommissioner’swebsite(www.icbc.com/about‐

ICBC/raising‐concerns/fairness_commissioner)inJune2011resultedinanotableincreaseinvisitsin2012comparedtoprioryears.Therewere3,129visitstothewebsitein2012;1,601visitsin2011;and528visitsin2010.ThesechangesalsolikelyhadaninfluenceintheincreaseinthenumberofcomplaintlettersreceivedbytheFairnessCommissionerin2012.

9

FairnessCommissionerOpenedandClosedcases(2009to2012)

ComplaintsreviewedbytheFairnessCommissioner(2009to2012)

*In2010,ICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartmentwasabletoresolve64%ofcomplaintspriortoinvolvementoftheFairnessCommissioner.

Opened

Closed0

50

100

150

200

250

20092010

20112012

186

168

141

213183

203

154

221

Opened

Closed

0

20

40

60

80

100

20092010

20112012

88

68 *

86

98

10

WhatdoICBCcustomerswritetotheFairnessCommissionerabout? In2012,themajorityofcustomerswritingtotheFairnessCommissionerhadconcernswithoneofthefollowingICBCbusinessareas:ClaimsServices,AccountServices(formerlyknownasCustomerCollections),Autoplan,andDriverLicensing.Thefollowingchartsprovideanillustrativeviewof2012closedfilesbyissuetypeandpercentagesfromthesemainbusinessareas.(Note:Percentagesmaynotsumto100percentduetorounding).Statisticsfor2010‐2012summarizedinAppendixE.FairnessCommissionerCasesbyBusinessArea

Autoplan23%

ClaimsServices40%

AccountServices16%

DriverLicensing12%

PrivacyandFOI1%

RoadSafety1% ServiceQuality3%

VehicleLicensingandRegistration

2%

NotICBC1%

11

ClaimsServicesWhataspectoftheclaimsexperienceconcernedthecustomer?

DriverLicensingWhatprocessorprogramwithinthedriverlicensingtransactionconcernedthecustomer?

claimhandling8%

coveragedenied32%

externalserviceproviders1%

hitandrun~uninsured

4%injury

management7%

liability19%

rentalvehicle(lossofuse)1%

repairs16%

settlement5%

TotalLoss3%TotalTheft

(stolenvehicles)4%

IDrequirements18%

GraduatedLicensing

Program15%

refusetoissue(RTI)18%

vehicle&driverrecords4%

driver'slicencestatus4%

issuanceofdriver'slicence

11%

movingin/outofprovince4%

Exams26%

12

AutoplanWhatinsurancerelatedtransactionconcernedthecustomer?

AccountServices Whattypeofdebtrelatedactivityconcernedthecustomer?

ICBCPaymentPlanfinancing

6%

Claim‐RatedScale(CRS)33%

insurancecoverage10%policydetails

10%

premiumdiscounts4%

MultipleCrash

Premium2%

cancellationsandrefunds21%

cost12%

transactions2%

DriverPointPremium(DPP)

debt17%

claimrecoverydebt30%

DriverRiskPremium(DRP)

debt17%

finesdebt11%

insurancepremiumdebt

22%

MultipleCrashPremium3%

13

FairnessCommissioner(FC)caseresolutionfrom2009–2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 CustomerRelationsresolvedthemattertothecustomer’ssatisfaction

92 50% 129 64% 63 41%* 119 54%

ReviewedbytheFCwithadeterminationofnounfairness

67 36% 52 25% 70 45% 66 30%

ReviewedbytheFCwitharecommendationthatwasimplementedbyICBC

1 1% 1 1% 1 0%

ResolutionfacilitatedbytheFC 1 1% 5 2% 3 2% 5 2%

AnotherICBCdepartmentresolvedthemattertothecustomer’ssatisfaction

1 0%

DeterminedtobeoutsidethejurisdictionoftheFC

19 10% 10 5% 15 10% 25 11%

Customerabandonedorwithdrewtheirconcern 5 3% 6 3% 3 2% 4 2%

Total 183 203 154 221

Note:Percentagesmaynotsumto100%duetorounding*In2011,ICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartmentmadechangestoitsFairnessCommissionerfilemanagementprocesswhichresultedinasmallernumberoffileopeningsandasaconsequencethepercentageoffilesresolvedbytheCustomerRelationsdepartmentwaslowerthaninpreviousyears.

14

AppendixA:RecommendationmadebytheFairnessCommissionerTherewasonecasein2012(C208547)wheretheFairnessCommissionermadeaformalrecommendation.Afterareviewofthisvery“convulated”case,theCommissionerfoundthatICBChadtreatedthecustomerunfairlyinthatithadsentsomepersonalcorrespondencetothecustomertoanincorrectaddress.TheCommissionerrecommendedthatICBCapologizetothecustomerforthiserror.ICBCagreedwiththerecommendationandsentanapologytothecustomer.

ThefollowingisasummaryoftheissueandtheFairnessCommmisioner’sinvestigation,analysis,recommendation,andtheresolution.Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionerbecausehewasunhappyinthewayICBChaddealtwithhisDriverPenaltyPoint(DPP)premiums.InvestigationandAnalysis:Inreachinghisdecision,theFairnessCommissionerreviewedthevariouspointsandatimelinethatthecustomerhadsubmittedaswellasmaterialcontainedinafilepreparedbyICBCwhichincludedtheregulatorybasisfortheDPPprocessandcorrespondencebetweenthecustomerandICBC.

15

Uponcompletionofhisreview,theCommissionerwrotetothecustomerandstatedthat:

“Thefactsofyourcasearequiteconvoluted.Havinganalyzedthematerialinthefileseveraltimes,includingyourcommentsandassertionsrelatingtothem,Iampersuadedthatthesummaryoffactscontainedinthelettertoyou,datedDecember22,2010,fromCatherineDixon,CustomerRelationsAdvisor,isanaccurateportrayaloftheeventsleadinguptoyourrequestforareview.YoumustbearinmindthatICBCactsuponfactsitfindstoexistasprobabilitiesandnotfactsthatareprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt.Itwillnotactuponmerespeculation,butonlyuponprobabilities.IconcludethatMs.Dixon'sletteraccuratelysetsouttheprobableeventsleadinguptothisapplicationforaFairnessreview.IfIunderstandyourargumentthatyouhavebeendealtwithunfairlybytheCorporation,itisthis:therearethreeissuesthatyouraiseinsupportofyourunfairnessclaim.1. Yourdriverpenaltypointssurcharge(DPP)wasengenderedbytwotraffic

offenseticketsissuedtoyouonSeptember8,2008,andOctober24,2008,respectively.YousaythattheOctober24,2008,ticketwaserroneouslyattributedtoyoubecauseonthatdateyouwereinWashingtonandnotinBritishColumbia.YouwereadvisedbyanemployeeofICBC,“Danny”,thattherewasaprocessavailabletoreviewtheintegrityofticketswhereadriverisallegingthatsomeoneimpersonatedhimorheratthetime.Youinitiatedthisprocesswhichinvolvedtheissuingofficerreviewingthematter.InyourcasetheissuingofficerwassatisfiedforthereasonssummarizedbyMs.Dixoninherlettertoyou,datedDecember22,2010,thattheviolationtickethadbeenissuedtoyou.YouwerenotifiedinwritingbyaletterdatedAugust21,2009,thatyourimpersonationreviewhadbeenunsuccessful.Unfortunately,thatformletteradvisedyoutoproceedtotheProvincialCourtifyouwantedtocontinuetoappealyourticket.Thiswasmisleading,becauseonlytheSupremeCourtofthisprovincehasjurisdictiontotakeanappealwhereaconvictionrelatingtoaparticulartickethasbeenentered.Sincethefinewasnotpaidonthatticketthisistreatedasaconvictioninrelationtoit.Aconvictionwasalsoenteredbecauseyoudidnotenteranoticeofintentiontodisputetheticketwithinthe30dayperiodallowed.Inthisrespectyoualsosaythat"Lisa"toldyoutoappealtotheProvincialCourt,butthisisnotborneoutbythefileinformationwhichindicatesthatLisadirectedyoutotheProvincialCourttodeterminewhatyournextstepwouldbe,nottotaketheformalappealthere.ThismatteronlybecameproblematicbecauseyouapparentlylodgedanappealintheProvincialCourtwhichwasreceivedthereandonlylaterwastheappropriatecourtjurisdictionresolved.

Youarguethatyouweredirectedintotheimpersonationreviewprocessof

ICBCbyDanny,whichdelayedyouropportunitytoproperlyappealthe

16

ticket,andwereerroneouslydirectedtotheProvincialCourtwhichagaindelayedyouropportunitytolodgeanappealintheSupremeCourt.OnthematerialpresentedtomeIcannotconcludethatDanny,asaprobability,insistedthatyouengagewiththeimpersonationreviewprocess.Thefileindicatesthatheadvisedyouoftheoptionandsentyoutheformstofillin.Youhadtheoptionofparticipatinginitornot.So,Iputasideyourargumentbaseduponyourinvolvementintheimpersonationreviewprocess.

IalsodonotfindthatyouhavedemonstratedasaprobabilitythatLisa

directedyoutotheProvincialCourtforthepurposeofanappealtothatcourt.Thefilemakesitquiteclearthatshedirectedyoutheretodeterminewhatyouroptionswere.Iagreethattheletteryoureceivedaftertheimpersonationreviewprocesswasmisleading,butitshouldhavebeenresolvedintheCourtRegistrywhenyoufiledyourappeal.TheCorporationhassincechangedthatformlettertoaccuratelyreflectthejurisdictionoftherespectivecourts.Inmyopinionthelettertoyou,datedAugust21,2009,wasmisleadingandunfairtoyou.But,inherletterofDecember22,2010,Ms.DixonapologizedtoyouinthisrespectandarrangedtoremovecertaininterestowingfromyourDPPpremiumandtoissueyousixmonthsinsuranceuponspecificterms.Inmyopinionthissatisfactorilydealtwiththeissue.

2. Youtalkof"harassingandthreateningnotices"fromICBCandcomplainthat

muchofyourcorrespondencewasnotrespondedtoinatimelyfashion. The"harassingandthreateningnotices"arestandardnoticesthatICBC

forwardstocustomersinyourcircumstances.InmyopinionthepracticeofICBCusingthesenoticesindealingwithcustomerswhoareinarrearsisnotunfair.Thematteroftimelyresponseisnotoneoffairness,becauseyoudidnotindicatethatyousufferedanylossotherthanaggravation,whichwealldowhenwethinkthatanother,inthiscasetheCorporation,isnotdealingwithamatterasefficientlyaswethinkitshould.Thisisreallyamatterofcustomerserviceandnotoneoffairness.SoIputitaside.

3. Therealcomplaintthatyouhave,andtheonethathascausedmethemost

difficulty,relatestothefactthatonepieceofcorrespondencerelatingtothe(initially)unpaidtrafficticketandaDPPinvoicewassenttoyouatanaddressonT.Road,Abbotsford,insteadofyourS.AvenueaddressinAbbotsford.TheT.Roadaddresswasatthattimetheaddressofyourestrangedwife.Forwhateverreason,shepaidtheOctober24,2008,ticketwithoutyourauthority.IfIunderstandthereasonwhyyouthinkthiserroronthepartoftheCorporationisunfairtoyou,itisthattheoutstandinginvoiceledtosubsequentdisharmoniouscommunicationsbetweenyouandyourestrangedspouse.Youarguethatthisconstitutesaninvasionofyourprivacy,andaconstitutionalinvasionofprivacyatthat!

17

AsaFairnessCommissionerIdonotmakedeterminationsthatareessentiallylegalinnature.So,Iwillputasideyourargumentconcerningyoubeingthevictimofaconstitutionalbreachofprivacy,thisissuecouldonlyberesolvedbyacourt.But,inthisprovincethereislegislationdealingwiththatmatteranditrequires,amongotherthings,forapersonalleginganinvasionofprivacytoestablishthatitwasintentionalandthatheorshehassuffereddamageasaresult.Theletterdidgotothewrongaddress,butitwasnotintendedtoinvadeyourprivacy.Aswell,youhavenotdemonstratedthatyouhavesufferedanydamageasaresultofitgoingtothewrongaddress.Whyitwenttothewrongaddressremainsamystery.

IaskedtheCustomerServiceDepartmentofICBCtotrackitdownandadvise

me.Afterseveraldaysofreviewingcomputerthreads,ICBCconcluded"thereissomesortofsystemissuethatwecan'ttracethatledtothelettergoingtotheotheraddress".ItobviouslywasrelatedtothefactthatthecarlocatedattheT.Roadaddress,whichwasbeingdrivenbyyourex‐wife,wasregisteredinherandyourjointnames.

IampersuadedthatICBChasdoneallthatitcantoascertainjusthowthat

letterwassenttothewrongaddressbut,canitbesaidthatbysendingthelettertotheT.RoadaddressthatICBCwasdealingwithyouunfairly?Itwasinallprobabilitycareless,butwasitunfair?MyopinionisthatitwasunfairinthesensethatitwasquiteunreasonabletoforwardsuchcorrespondencetoanotheraddresswhenyourS.Avenueaddresshadbeenclearlydesignatedastheappropriateoneformattersrelatingtoyourmotorvehicleandlicensing.Thematerialinthecorrespondencewassensitiveinnature,butICBCcouldnothaveanticipatedthatitwouldbereceivedbyyourspouseduringdivorceproceedingsandopenedbyherwhenclearlyaddressedtoyou.Also,youhavenotdemonstratedtheerrorbytheCorporationcausedyouanyparticularloss,norhaveyoudemonstratedthatitaffectedanyofyouropportunitiestoappealtheticket.ItwascertainlyanadditionalaggravationtowhatyouperceivetobeanumberofcustomerservicefailuresonthepartoftheCorporationandforthatIamgoingtorecommendthatICBCissueyouanapology.”

18

Recommendation: MyconclusionisthatyouhavebeenunfairlydealtwithinoneunresolvedrespectbytheCorporationandyouareentitledtoanapologyinthatregard.ThisistherecommendationthatIwillmaketotheCorporation.IfyouaredissatisfiedwithmydecisionyoucouldtakeyourcasetotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown,ortothecourtsofthisprovince.

Resolution: GiventheFairnessCommissioner’srecommendation,ICBCsentthefollowingapologylettertothecustomeronSeptember17,2012: “DearMr.S:

IhavereceivedacopyoftheAugust31,2012decisionfromMr.PeterBurns,ICBCFairnessCommissioner.TheCommissionerconcludedthatanapologyiswarrantedforICBCmistakenlysendingcorrespondencemeantforyourpersonalattentiontothewrongaddress.

Westrivetomaintainahighstandardofcustomerservice.Withrespecttothelettersenttoanincorrectaddress,pleaseacceptmyapologyonbehalfofICBCforthisstandardnotbeingmet.

Yourstruly, BobSaito Manager,CustomerRelationsandReviewServices”

19

AppendixB:CasesresolvedbytheFairnessCommissionerwithoutarecommendationIn2012,therewerefivecaseswheretheFairnessCommissionerdirectlyassistedwiththeoutcome,butwasnotrequiredtowritearecommendationlettertoICBCinordertoassistthecustomer.ThefollowingaresummariesoftheissuesandtheFairnessCommmisioner’sinvestigations,analyses,andtheresolutions.

Case1(C212091): Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionerbecausehewasunhappythatICBChaddeniedabackdatedinsurancepremiumrefundforthepolicyhisdaughterhadonaleasedvehiclehehadpurchased.InvestigationandAnalysis:Customer’sdaughterhadbeenthelesseeofavehicleandthecustomerdecidedtopurchasethevehiclebybuyingoutthelease.Thecustomercancelledthepreviousinsurancepolicyandhadthevehicletransferredintohisnameatadealership.Unfortunately,thebrokeratthedealershipfailedtoobtainthelicenceplatesduringthepurchaseasanemployeeofthedealershiphadplacedthelicenceplatesinthetrunkofthevehicle.Neitherthecustomer,thebroker,orthelessor/dealershipwereawarethattheinitialpolicyhadnotbeenproperlycancelled.Abouttwomonthsafterthepurchase,thecustomer’sdaughternotedpaymentsfromtheinitial(leasing)policywerestillcontinuing.Thecustomerbroughtthistotheattentionofthedealership,thebrokerandICBC.ICBCdeclinedtoprovideabackdatedpremiumrefundbasedontworeasons:

1. ICBCfeltthatthecancellationerrorwasasaresultofthebroker'sunawarenessoftheproperprocedureandthedealership'scarelessness.

20

2. UntilactivelicenceplatesforapolicyarereturnedtoICBC,thepolicyremainsactiveandICBCisatrisktopayaclaimwhetherornotthelicenceplateisattachedavehicle.UnattachedlicenceplatescarryinsurancecoveragesuchasThirdPartyLiability,AccidentBenefits,andUnderinsuredMotoristProtection.Unattachedlicenceplatescanalsobeusedastemporaryinsurance(upto10days)whenareplacementvehiclehasbeenacquired.

TheFairnessCommissionercarefullyreviewedthecustomer'ssituationanddeterminedthattheresult“wasnotastheresultofanydecision,policy,oractionoftheCorporationbutthroughanoversightinitiallybyanemployeeofthedealershipandsubsequentlybyyourinsurancebroker.”Giventhereluctanceonthepartofthedealershipandinsurancebrokertohelpthecustomer,theFairnessCommissioneraskedICBCtorevisitthematter.Resolution:AtthesuggestionoftheFairnessCommissioner,ICBCreviewedthecustomer’ssituationagainandtheFairnessCommissionerwaspleasedtoreporttothecustomerthat:

Afterextensiveinternalreview,ICBCbroughtthisoversighttotheattentionoftheinsurancebrokeragethatprocessedyourpolicytransactions.Thebrokeragehasacknowledgedthattheirrepresentativedidnotprocessyourpolicycancellationproperly.Asaresult,ICBCisintheprocessofissuingyouwitharefundchequefor$583.00.

Cases2to5(C208036,C212323,C212340andC212341): Issues:FourdifferentcustomerswrotetotheFairnessCommissionerinMarchandApril2012complainingthatICBChadrestrictedtheamountofaClaim‐RatedScale(CRS)refundtotheircurrentinsurancepolicies.ICBCwasnotwillingtobackdatetheirrefundstothetimetheyhadobtainedtheirClass7learner’sdriver’slicences.Inallfourcases,thecustomersarguedtheyhadheldalearner’sdriver’slicence“foracertainnumberofyearsandshouldbeentitledtocreditontheCRSfortheaccidentfreeyearsinvolved,andarefundforanypremiumspaidthatdidnotreflectthoseaccidentfreeyears.” InvestigationandAnalysis:TheFairnessCommissionerreviewedICBC'spracticeinbackdatingCRSentitlementswhenacustomermovesfromalearner’s(“L”)driver’slicencetoanovice(“N”)driver’slicenceoraClass5driver’slicence.TheCommissionerfoundthat:

“theCorporationtakesthepositionthattheformallimitsplaceduponlearnerscreatesanartificialdrivingexperiencewhich,inmanycases,maynotreflectthedriver'sabilitytodrivesafelyonceheorshehadmovedbeyondthe"L"learner'slicence.Forexample,the"L"licencerequiresaqualifieddrivertobepresentinthevehiclewhenthe"L"licenceddriverisoperatingit.ThisiswhytheCorporation

21

drawsadistinctionbetween"L"driversandotherdriversforthepurposeofdeterminingCRSentitlement.Thisappearstometobereasonableandnotunfair.Atitsinception,thepolicyrelatingtobackdatingaCRSdiscountisverysimple,insofarasitappliedto"L"drivers.Therewasnocreditfor"L"yearsofexperiencegrantedto"L"driversindeterminingwheretheyshouldbeplacedontheCRS.Inrecentyearsthispracticehaschangedsothatclaimsfree"L"yearscanresultinanenhancedplaceontheCRSforformer"L"drivers.Thischangewasintroducedasagratuitouscustomerservicebutwasimplementedsubjecttotwoconditions.ThefirstisthatacustomermustinitiatetheapplicationfortheenhancedCRSlevel,andanybackdateofthatlevelisconfinedtoamaximumof395daysandanyrelatedrefundisconfinedtothecurrentpolicyterm.ThesecondconditionisthatanenhancedcreditontheCRSmayattractasubsequentrefundtothecustomer,butonlyforthecurrentyearandgoingforward.Itwillnotbebackdatedtoprioryears.”

Regardingthelattercondition,theFairnessCommissionerstatedthatiswas:“unfairforICBCtoconfinerefunds(asdistinctfromplaceontheCRS)tothoseacustomermaybeentitledtoinacurrentyearandinsubsequentyears.InthepresentcontextthereisnoprovisionintheCorporation'scomputersystemtopickup"L"driversforthepurposeofreassessingtheirCRSlevel.Ithastobedonemanuallywhichisaveryexpensiveproposition.Giventhatsuchareviewisagratuitouscustomerserviceengraftedontheinitialpractice,thattheCorporationbudgetsonanannualbasis,thatanyretroactiveeffectsofitspracticeswouldhavetobebornebythegeneralrunofcustomers,andthatICBChasmadeprovisionforamendmentsoftheCRSandrefundsbasedonthatCRSforthecurrent,andsubsequentyears,Iamnotpersuadedthatthepresentpracticeisunfair.”

Regardingthefirstcondition,theFairnessCommissionerexplainedthat:

“ICBChasdealtwiththematterofcustomernotificationbymakingbrokersthesolepointofdistributionforitsinsuranceproductsanddelegatingtheresponsibilityforprovidingadvicetothecustomer'sbroker.Experiencedbrokersaregenerallyawareoftheruleandcheckonaclient'sentitlementwhentheclientpurchaseshisorherfirstpolicyofinsuranceorarenewal.Myconclusionisthatthenotificationpolicyinvolvingbrokersisreasonableandnotunfairtocustomers.”

Intheend,theFairnessCommissionerdidfindthat:

“giventhatthecontactpointbetweenthecustomerandICBCisthebroker,andnotICBCitself,IhavepersuadedICBCtoincorporateashortstatementofacustomer'sentitlementinitswebpagesandprovidebrokerswithmoreinformationonthesituation.”

22

Resolution:ICBCreviewedtheFairnessCommissioner’stwopracticalandpragmaticsuggestionsandupdateditswebsitewithabetterexplanationoftheimportanceofspeakingtoabrokertoobtaintheproperCRScreditforone’slearner’sdriver’slicencehistory.ICBCalsosentoutappropriatecommunicationregardingthisissuetobrokersthroughabrokerbulletinandanonlinebrokernewsletter.

23

AppendixC:CasesresolvedbyICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartmentThefollowingcasesillustratesomeofthecircumstanceswhereICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartmentresolvedthecustomer’sconcernwithoutthedirectassistanceoftheFairnessCommissioner.ThesecasesinvolvedcustomerswritingtotheCommissionerwiththeirconcernandtheCommissioneraskingtheCustomerRelationsdepartmenttoinvestigate.In2012,54percentofthecomplaintsdirectedtotheFairnessCommissionerweresuccessfullyresolvedbytheCustomerRelationsdepartmenttothesatisfactionofthecustomer.Inthoseinstances,aCustomerRelationsadvisorwasabletoinvestigatethecustomer’sconcernandeitherexplainedICBC’sdecisionorobtainedanagreementfromamanager,seniorexecutive,orcommitteetoreconsiderortomakeamorefavourabledecisiononbehalfofthecustomer.AlthoughtheFairnessCommissionerwasnotdirectlyinvolvedintheresolutionofthesecases,theassurancethattherecouldbefuturerecoursetohisofficelikelyhadsomeinfluenceonthefinaldecisions.

Case1(C204001):

Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionerasshewantedabackdatedinsurancepremiumrefundfromICBCtothedateshehadtotaledhervehicle,August28,2011.ICBChadbackdatedthecancellationofherpolicy45daystoOctober16,2011.

Investigation:CustomercrashedhervehicleinCaliforniaandhervehiclewasatotalloss.Unfortunately,shedidnotcarryCollisioncoverage.ICBCbackdatedthecancellationofherICBCpolicy45daysfromthetimeshehadcontactedICBC,asthecustomerhadnotreturnedher

24

BritishColumbialicenceplateswhichcarriesongoinginsurancecoverage,regardlessiftheyareattachedtoavehicle.CustomerRelationsaskedthecustomertoprovideproofhervehiclehadbeenatotallossandthatherlicenceplateswerelostinthecrash.Resolution:Customerlatersuppliedinformationconfirmingvehiclehadbeenatotallossandthatherlicenceplateswerelikelylostinthecrash,soICBCagreedtobackdatethepremiumtothedateofthecrash.Case2(C206568):Issue:ThecustomersentanonlinesubmissiontotheFairnessCommissionerrequestingthatICBCallowhertoregistera1995WesternStartractorandinsurea2006Midlandbellytrailer.ICBChadrefusedtodosobecauseofoutstandingdebtonbothvehicles.Investigation:CustomerRelationsworkedwiththecustomerandconfirmedthatthedebthadbeenapparentlypaidwhenthevehiclesweretransferredintothecustomer’scompanyname.Resolution:CustomerRelationshadtheAccountServicesdepartmentreviewthedocumentationforwardedbythecustomerandthecustomerwasallowedtoregisterandinsurethetruckandtrailer.Case3(C208134):Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionercomplainingthathehadnotreceivedanAnti‐TheftDevicediscountfromICBCuntilthelasttimeherenewedhisinsurancepolicywheninfacthehadbeeneligibleforthediscountforthepasteightyears.Investigation:CustomerRelationscontactedtheAutoplanbrokerwhohadcompletedthemajorityofthecustomer’srenewals.Thisbrokerhadnotcompletedtheoriginalpolicyeightyearsagosotheydidnotcreatethiserror.Resolution:Brokergavethecustomera$50TimHortonsgiftcardascustomerservicegestureandCustomerRelationshadamessagewritteninabrokernewsletterremindingbrokerstocoverofftheAnti‐TheftDevicediscountwiththeirclients.

25

Case4(C212176):Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionerashewasupsetthatICBChadnotacceptedhisPakistanidriver’slicenceandthatICBCwasunfairlyplacinghimintothegraduatedlicensingprogram(GLP)eventhoughhehadbeendrivingsince1987.

Investigation:CustomerRelationsliasedwithamanagerataDriverLicensingOfficeregardingthecustomer’ssituationandaskedthatthemanagertoreviewthematter.Resolution:TheDriverLicensingOfficemanagerreviewedthecustomer’sPakistanidriver’slicenceandagreedtoacceptit.Managermetwiththecustomer,explainedthisandthathewillnotbeplacedintotheGLP.Case5(C213195):Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionerusingtheonlineformashewasconcernedabouthowhewasgoingtopayICBCregardingtheoutstandingbalanceofadebtsohecouldhavehisdriver’slicencereinstatedbyICBC.Investigation:Thecustomerhadmadeseveralsignificantpaymentsagainstthedebtinthepast,butwasunabletoworkwithoutadriver’slicence.Thecustomerhadalsosufferedarecenthealthrelatedsetbackthatcouldbeanobstacleinresolvinghisoutstandingaccount.CustomerRelationsbroughtthecustomer’ssituationtotheattentionofanAccountServicesmanager.Resolution:Themanagerreviewedthecustomer’sfileandconcludedthatthecustomer’spasteffortsinrepayinghisoutstandingdebtshouldbeacknowledgedandagreedtoacceptafinal$1000paymenttosettlethematter.

26

AppendixD:SelectcasesFromtheFairnessCommissioner:TogivethereaderofthisreportsomeideaoftheissuesthatIdealwith,Iincludethefollowingsamplecasesfrom2012.Additionalexamplesfrommypreviousannualreportscanalsobefoundat:www.icbc.com.

CaseStudy1:denialofrequesttobackdateapremiumrefund(C206442)IacknowledgereceiptofyourapplicationforaFairnessReview,datedFebruary13,2012,ofthedecisionofICBCtorefundonlypartofthemonthlypremiumpaymentsthatyoucontinuedtomakeafteryourvehiclebecameaconstructivetotalloss.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthepointsthatyoumakeinyoursubmissiontothisoffice,aswellasthecontentsofafilepreparedbytheCorporationforthepurposeofthisreviewwhichincludes,amongotherthings,afullchronologyoftheevents,thepertinentregulatoryprovisions,andastatementofICBC'spolicyrelatingtobackdatingrefundsofthissort.Atthisstageitwouldbeusefultooutlinemyjurisdictionandtounderscoresomefeaturesofit.Mytermsofreferencelimitmyreviewtomattersofprocess.IcaninterferewithdecisionsoftheCorporationandmakerecommendationsforchangeifIconcludethatacustomerhasbeendealtwithinadiscriminatorymanner,orthatthewayinwhichthedecisionreachedbytheCorporationisinsomewayirregularleadingtounfairnessintheresult.WhatIcannotdoismakearecommendationforchangetotheCorporationmerelybecauseIwouldhavereachedadifferentconclusion,orthatthecustomerdoesnotagreewithit.1

1 ThisparagraphexplainsthejurisdictionoftheFairnessCommissionerandforthepurposesofthisreporthasbeenremovedfromthesubsequentcasestudies.

27

Myjurisdictionisconcernedwithproceduralfairness.Forexample,hastheCorporationtakenthepertinentfactsintoaccount,listenedtotheargumentsmadebythecustomer,andcommunicateditsdecisionandthereasonsforitonceithasbeenmade?Attheendoftheday,istheCorporation'sdecisionreasonableinthecircumstancesofthecase? 2Thefactsinyourcasearequiteclearlysetoutinthelettertoyou,datedFebruary7,2012,fromMs.NatalieAktas,CustomerRelationsAdvisor,soIwillnotrestatethemhere.YourargumentisthatyouwereunawarethatICBChadcontinuedtowithdrawmonthlypremiumpaymentsfromyouraccount,butwhenyoudidbecomeawareofsuchwithdrawalsyoucontactedtheCorporationandwereadvisedtoturninyourlicenceplatestoanAutoplanbroker'soffice.YoudidthisandICBCprocessedthebackdatedpolicyrefundbasedupon45daysfromthedateyouturnedinyourplates.Youarguethattherefundshouldextendbackfromthedatethatyouturnedinyourlicenceplatestothedateofthecollisionrenderingyourcaraconstructivetotalloss.YouarguethatitisunfairforICBCnottodothis.Unfortunately,theproblemthatyouhaveencounteredappearstobeoneofyourownmaking.Whenyoupickedupyoursettlementchequeyoureceivedtwoenvelopes,bothofwhichwouldhavehadadhesivestickersonthemadvisingyoutotaketheplatestoanAutoplanbrokertoeithertransferthemtoanothervehicleortocancelyourinsurance.ItwasnotuntilMay7,2011,thatyouattendedabroker'sofficeandactuallycancelledyourpolicy.Thepremiumrefundwasthencalculatedtoextendbackfor45daysfromthatdate.TheformalrequirementsforcancellinginsuranceoveramotorvehiclearecontainedintheBasicInsuranceTariffwhichhastheeffectofaregulationinthisprovince.ItrequiressurrenderandcancellationofanOwner'sCertificate,surrenderofthenumberplatesandthecompletionofacancellationform.Thereisnoprovisionforbackdatingrefundswhereavehiclehasbeenatotallossandtheinsuredhasjustfailedtocompletecancellationofthepolicy.ButtheCorporationhasdevelopedabackdatingpolicyrelatingtosuchrefunds.Itwasintroducedin2003anditconfinesbackdatingto45daysfromthedateofcancellation.Thereasonforadoptingthe45dayrulewasthat90%oftotallossclaimsweresettledwithin45daysandittookanaverageof45daysforanadjustortoconducttheinvestigationandsettleliability.Thismeansthatmostcasesarecoveredbythe45dayrule.Indecidingwhetherornottheruleisreasonable(fair)twofactorsmustbeborneinmind.ThefirstisthatduringtheperiodwhenthepolicyisnotcancelledbythecustomertheCorporationcontinuestoremainliableforcertainfeaturesofthecustomer'sinsurancecoveredbythatpolicy.So,arangeofcontingentliabilitiescontinuetoremaininforcesofarasICBCisconcerneduntilthepolicyexpiresoriscancelled.Thesecondpointisthatthe

2 ThisparagraphexplainsthejurisdictionoftheFairnessCommissionerandforthepurposesofthisreporthasbeenremovedfromthesubsequentcasestudies.

28

45daylimituponbackdatingrefundsintotallosscasescoversthevastbulkofsuchclaims.InthesecircumstancesIamunabletoconcludethatthe45daylimituponbackdatingrefundsintotallosscasesisunreasonable,andthereforeitisnotunfair.Accordingly,IamunabletofindanyunfairnessonthepartoftheCorporationinapplyingitsstandardpracticerelatingtobackdatingtotallossrefundstoyourcase.IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.Ofcourse,youcouldtakeyourcasetotheofficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown,ortothecourtsofthisprovince.CaseStudy2:assessmentofresponsibility(C209270)IacknowledgereceiptofyouremailrequestforaFairnessReview,datedMay2,2012,onbehalfofyourmother,Mrs.M.,relatingtothefindingofliabilitymadebyICBCconcerningthecollisionthatshewasinvolvedinwithanothervehicleonMarch9,2012.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthevariouspiecesofcorrespondencethatyouhavehadwithICBC,thepointsyoumakeinyouremailtothisoffice;aswellasthecontentsofafilepreparedforthepurposeofthisreviewbyICBCthatcontains,amongotherthings,driverandwitnessstatements,photographsofthedamagetothemotorvehiclesconcerned,thefullchronologyofeventsincludingthepolicereport,thepertinentlegislativeandregulatoryprovisionsinvolved,andsomeearlierdecisionsofmyownthatdealwithbroadlysimilarmatters.Thefactsinyourcaseareindispute.Inthisreviewyouareactinguponbehalfofyourmother,Mrs.M.,whowasthedriveroftheSaturnatthetimeofthecollision.OnMarch9,2012,youwereapassenger(withyourson)ina2000Saturnsedandrivenbyyourmother,Mrs.M..Bothyourmother'sandyourversionofeventsarethatwhileproceedingsouthboundonGilmoreAvenueinBurnaby,yourvehiclestoppedforaredlightattheintersectionwithLougheedHighway.Asmallredpickuptruckhadstoppedinfrontofyouanditreversedintoyourvehicleanddroveaway.Youobtainedthelicenceplateandadvisedthepolice.Anofficerattendedandonthosebarefactsissuedaticketagainsttheotherdriver,oncehehadbeenidentified.YounotifiedICBCtwodayslaterofthecollision.OnMarch10,2012,theotherdriverreportedtoICBCthathehadbeenstoppedattheintersectionandthatthevehiclebehindhimstruckhis1994Mazdapickuptruckcausingaminorscratch.Heassertedthatyourvehicleleftthescenewithouthisbeingabletotakethelicenceplate.Theattendingpoliceofficer,whohassinceinterviewedtheotherdriver,hasnowconcludedthatonthefactspresentedtohimheisunabletopositivelyattributefault.Sincetheotherdriverhasissuedanoticetodisputethattrafficticketthematterwillpresumablyberesolvedintheprovincialcourt.

29

Inessence,ICBCwasconfrontedwiththefactofthecollisionandstatementsfromyouandyourmotherassertingcertainfacts,andastatementfromtheotherdriverassertingdiametricallydifferentfacts.Thephysicalevidencedidnotresolvethediscrepancybetweenthetwodescriptions,sotheCorporationwasobligedtoapplysuchinferencesasitcoulddrawfromtheestablishedfactsandsuchlawasappliedtothem.ICBCappliesacivilstandardofproofindeterminingwhetherornotparticularfactshavebeendemonstrated.Itdeterminessuchfactstobeprobabilitiesornot,itdoesnotrequirethemtobeestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt,nordoesitactuponmerespeculation.Theonlyfact,independentfromtheversionsofthepartiesinvolvedinthecollision,isthefactofthecollision.Inthisrespect,sincetheversionspresentedbythepartieswereinconsistentandnotindependent,theCorporationappliedsection161(1)oftheMotorVehicleAct.Thisimposestheobligationofprovingthattheothermotoristwasnegligentuponyou.InthecircumstancesICBChasconcludedthatyouhavejustnotestablishedthenegligenceoftheothermotoristuponthebalanceofprobabilities.Itwasforthisreasonthatyourmother,thedriver,washeldtobe100%atfault.Iamunabletoconcludethatthisdecisionisunreasonable.Accordingly,IamunabletofindthatICBChasdealtwithyouunfairlyinconcludingthatyourmotherwas100%atfault.But,thismatterisessentiallyoneofcredibility.AFairnessReview,whichisadministrativeinnature,isanimperfecttooltodealwiththatissue.Onlyacourtwherethepartiesandwitnessescanbeexaminedandcross‐examinedcouldreallyresolvethecredibilityissue.Theupshotisthat,becauseIcouldfindnounfairnessinthedecisionbyICBC,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.Butthisneednotbetheendofthematterasfarasyouareconcerned.YoucouldtakeyourcasetothecourtsofthisProvinceand,inmyview,thatistheappropriateforumtohavetherealissuesinvolvedproperlydealtwith.YoucouldalsotakethemattertotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown. CaseStudy3:DriverRiskPremiumprogram(C215212)IacknowledgereceiptofrequestdatedOctober24,2012,forareviewofthedecisionofICBCtoplaceyouwithinitsDriverRiskPremium(DRP)programandbillyouaccordingly.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccounttheargumentyoumakeinyourreviewapplication,togetherwithmaterialprovidedtomebytheCorporationrelatingtotheDRPitself.Thefactsinyourcasehavebeensuccinctlysetoutinthelettertoyou,datedOctober31,2012,fromMs.JackieTurner,CustomerRelationsAdvisor.Yourargumentthatyouhave

30

beenunfairlydealtwithbytheCorporationbyimposingtheDRPuponyouisasimpleone.Yousaythatyouhaveonlyreceivedonespeedingticketinthepast15yearsandhavehadnootherdrivinginfractionsduringthatperiod.But,becauseofthatspeedingticketyouhavebeenplacedintheDRPandwillbesubjectedtoadriverriskpremiumof$320forthenextthreeyears.This,youargue,isunfair.TheDRPissetoutinScheduleEoftheBasicInsuranceTariffandwasmandatedbytheB.C.UtilitiesCommissionin2007.OncetheB.C.UtilitiesCommissionauthorizedtheDRP,ithadtheeffectofaRegulationinthisprovince.ThismeansthatIcannotgobehindthesubstanceoftheprogramandcanonlylookatthewayinwhichitisappliedinindividualcases.Effectively,ifyoucoulddemonstrate,forexample,thatICBCwasdiscriminatingagainstyouinsomeway,orthatitignoredanessentialelementofproof,Icoulddealwiththoseissuesonthegroundsofproceduralfairness.But,youmakenosuchargument.Youarguethat,givenyourpreviousdrivingrecord,itisunfairtoplaceyouintheprogramforasingletransgression.Inyourcaseyouwerechargedandconvictedoftheoffenceofexcessivedriving,withexcessivedrivingbeingdefinedas"drivingamotorvehicleonahighwayataspeedgreaterthan40km/hovertheapplicablespeedlimit…."ItisthisfactandthisfactalonethatplacedyouintotheDRP.ICBCdoesnotexerciseadiscretion,itjustappliestheprovisionsoftheDRPineachcase.Inthesecircumstances,IamunabletoconcludethattheCorporationhasdealtwithyouunfairlyinapplyingtheDRPtoyou.Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationoftheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.However,youcouldtakethemattertotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown,ortothecourtsofthisprovince.

CaseStudy4:validityofout‐of‐provincedriver’slicence(C212745)IacknowledgereceiptofyouronlineapplicationforaFairnessReview,datedAugust22,2012,ofthedecisionofICBCtorequireyoutoenrollintheGraduatingLicensingProgram(GLP),ratherthanacceptingasevidenceofyourdrivingexperiencethedriver'slicencefromIndiathatyouprovided.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthepointsthatyouhavemadeinyoursubmissiontothisoffice,togetherwithafilepreparedforthepurposeofthisreviewbytheCorporationthatsetsoutthefullchronologyofrelevantevents,correspondencefromyoutotheCorporationandfromtheCorporationtoyouorothersactingonyourbehalf,andalettertoyou,datedAugust13,2012,fromMs.ChristineBarrette,CustomerRelationsAdvisor,explainingwhyyourdriver'slicencewasnotsufficienttosatisfytherequirementsoftheCorporation.Thefactsofyourcasearefairlyclear.OnMarch5,2012,yousubmittedyourdriver'slicencefromthecityofRaikot,locatedinthePunjabareaofNorthernIndia,togetherwith

31

anapplicationforanequivalentB.C.driver'slicence.ICBClicensingstaffconcludedthatthelicencedidnotmatchthosepreviouslyreceivedandacceptedfromotherapplicantsthathadbeenissuedbyprovincialauthoritiesinIndia.Thedriver'slicencethatyouprofferedrevealedmisspellingonthelinearstampsandanapparenterrorrelatingtoitsexpirydate.Youhadbeenadvisedofthereasonsfornotacceptingyourdriver'slicenceasevidenceofyourdrivingexperienceinIndia.Anotherproblemwiththedriver'slicencethatyougavetoICBCwasthefactthatitwasnotedasaduplicate.Youwerealsoadvised,throughafemalerelative,thatnofurtherdocumentswouldbeacceptableasevidenceofyourdrivingexperienceinIndia.YouwereadvisedthatICBCwouldcontacttheIndianlicensingauthoritydirectlytoverifytheinformation,butthatuntilareplywasreceivedyouwouldberequiredtoremainintheGLP.OnApril24,2012,ICBCforwardedtheIndianlicensingauthoritiesarequestforfurtherdocumentationrelatingtoyouandyourson,Mr.G..Todate,therehasbeennoresponsetothisrequest.OnthesefactscanitbesaidthatICBChastreatedyouunfairlyinrequiringyoutoenrollintheGLP?WemustbearinmindthattheCorporationmakesitsdecisionsonthebasisoffactsperceivedasprobabilities.Itdoesnotrequirefactstobeestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt,nordoesitactuponmerepossibilitiesorspeculation.UndertheMotor(Vehicle)Act,ICBCmustbesatisfiedoftheprobableveracityofthefactsstatedinanapplicationforadriver'slicencebeforeissuinganother.Theburdenofestablishingtheveracityofanapplicant'sdrivingexperienceliesupontheapplicant.So,onthefactssofarastheyareknown,canitbesaidICBCwasactingunreasonably(unfairly)innotacceptingthedocumentationyouprovidedinsupportofyourapplicationforadriver'slicence?Inmyopinionitwasnot.Thedocumentationthatyouprovidedinsupportofyourapplicationwasdeficientinanumberofcrucialrespects.UponthebasisofitsexperienceindealingwithIndiandrivers'licences,theCorporationconcludedthatthelicencethatyouprovidedtoitwasprobablyinaccurate.Theburdenofestablishingthelicence'saccuracyrestedwithyou,andtheCorporationconcludedthatyouhadnotsatisfiedthisburden.IamunabletoconcludethatyouhavedemonstratedthatICBCwasdealingwithyouunfairlyinreachingthisconclusion.TheCorporationalsorevieweditsdecisionandupheldit.But,ifIunderstandyourargumentcorrectly,yousaythattherefusaltoacceptfurtherdocumentationinsupportofyourpositionisunfairaswell.ICBC'sresponseisthatiftheoriginalmaterialofferedtoitinsupportofyourapplicationisdeficient,thenfurtherdocumentationpurportingtoremedysuchdeficiencieswouldinallprobabilitynotbecogent.Instead,itwouldmerelyprovideanopportunityforthosewhoprovidedthe"original"withitsdeficienciestoprovideanotherwiththedeficienciesremedied.IamunabletoconcludethatICBC'spracticeinthisregardisunreasonable,thereforeIcannotconcludethatitsapplicationinyourcasewasunfair.YoudonotarguethattherehasbeenanytechnicaladministrativeerroronthepartoftheCorporationinitsdealingswithyou,soIputthatmatteraside.Ofcourse,iftheIndianauthoritiesrespondtoICBC'srequestforinformationinamannerfavourabletoyourcase,themattercanbere‐opened.

32

Youcouldalsotakeyourcasetothecourtsofthisprovince,ortotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy5:refusaltoallowaclaimrepayment(C206366)Iacknowledgeyourelectronicrequest,datedJanuary10,2012,foraFairnessReviewofthedecisionofICBCnottopermityoutorepaythe2009"chargeable"claimattributabletoyou,inordertoenhanceyourpresentpositionontheClaim‐RatedScale(CRS).In reachingmydecision Ihave taken into account the arguments that youhavemade inyour submission to this office, together with the contents of a file prepared by theCorporation for the purpose of this review,which contains among othermaterial, a fullchronology of the relevant events, the pertinent regulatory provisions that apply in thiscase,andanumberofearlierdecisionsofminethatdealwithroughlythesameissuethatyouraise.Iwillnotbelabourthefacts.Theyseemtometobequiteclearlysetoutinthee‐maillettertoyou,datedJanuary31,2012,fromMs,DebbyRaffard,CustomerRelationsAdvisor. IfIunderstandyourfairnessargumentcorrectlyitisthis: afteryour2009accidentICBCdidnot,whendiscussing therepaymentoptionwithyou,pointout that ifyouhave futureatfault accidents your CRSmight be adversely affected. This becamepertinent because in2011youhadanotheratfaultaccidentwhich,togetherwiththe2009accident,didaffectyour CRS quite strongly. The costs of repayment relating to the 2011 accident wereconsiderablymorethanthecostsofrepaymentofthe2009accidentwouldhavebeen.Yousaythathadyourealizedthisin2009,youprobablywouldhaverepaidthe2009accidentcostsandwouldthereforebeinamuchmorefavourablepositionontheCRSifyoudidnotrepaythe2011accidentcosts.Iwouldhave found this argumentmore convincing if Ihadnotnotedon the file thatonthreeoccasionspriorto2009youhadrepaidthecostsassociatedwithchargeableclaimsmadeagainstyourinsurancepoliciesatthetime.IamunabletoconcludethatitwasunfairofICBCnottoadviseyouatthetimeofyour2009claimthatyourCRSmaybeaffectedbyany additional at fault claims. Inmy view, any reasonable customer of the Corporationmustbetakentobeawareofthis.Youalsohaveasubsidiaryargument.YousaythatinyourcaseICBCis"ineffectprofitingfrommebyaconsiderablesum".YousaythatyourincreasedinsuranceratesoverafouryearperiodwillbemuchmorethantheamountthatICBCpaidoutonyourbehalfforthe2009accident.Thismaybetrue,butIamnotsurewhattomakeofitexcepttorelateittoyourotherassertionthat"ICBCisapublicentitywithamandate…nottoplanonprofitingoffthepublic…."Infact,ICBCisapubliccorporationintheinsurancemarketengaginginbusiness in exactly the sameway as any other insurance company does. The only realdifference is that it is created by statute and has a monopoly over basic (compulsory)insurancecoverage.

33

Wheredoesthistakeus?YouhavenotbeenabletopointtoanyadministrativeerroronthepartofICBC.Youhavealsobeendealtwithinexactlythesamewayasallcustomersinyoursituationaredealtwith.ThematterofrepaymentofdamagecostsisregulatedbytheBasic Insurance Tariff,which has the force of a regulation in this province. I cannot gobehind theBasic InsuranceTariff. Inearliercases Ihaveconcluded that thepracticesofICBC inapplying thispartof theBasic InsuranceTariff are reasonableand thereforenotunfair to customers. This includes the practice of not allowing claim repayments afterpolicyrenewal.Yourcasehasbeenreviewedandthedecisionthatyoucannotnowrepayyour2009claiminordertoenhanceyourCRSwasupheld. IamafraidthatIcandiscernnounfairnessinthewayinwhichyouhavebeendealtwithbyICBC.Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.Of course, there are some options that are also open to you. You could repay the 2011claim. YoucouldalsotakeyourcasetotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy6:denialofTotalTheftclaim(C206352)IacknowledgereceiptofyourlettertothisofficedatedFebruary1,2012,requestingaFairnessReviewofthedecisionofICBCtoseekrepaymentofmoniesthatithadpaidouttoyouasaresultofanallegedtheftofyourNissan300ZX.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthepointsthatyoumakeinyourlettertothisoffice,togetherwiththecontentsofafilepreparedbytheCorporationforthepurposeofthisreviewthatcontains,amongotherthings,therelevantcustomernotes,photographsofthevehiclewhenitwasrecoveredaswellasthesceneoftherecovery,alocksmith'sreportrelatingtotherecoveredvehicle,theCL159formthatyousignedwhenmakingyourinitialclaimcontainingadeclarationthatyouhavenoteverconsideredsellingortradingthevehicleconcerned,aswellasanearlierdecisionofmyowndealingwithacasethatisbroadlysimilartoyourown.ThefactsuponwhichICBCbaseditsdecisiontodemandrepaymentfromyouaresetout,intheletterdatedJanuary13,2012,fromMs.JackieTurner,CustomerRelationsAdvisor.Theactualdemandforrepaymentandthebasisforitiscontainedinthelettertoyou,datedJuly25,2011,fromMs.AnnBukowsky,ClaimsRepresentative,ChilliwackCustomerServices.ThebasisofyourargumentthatitisunfairforICBCtoattempttorecoverthepayoutthatitmadeonthebasisofyourinitialtheftclaim,appearstobethatthevehiclewasindeedstolenandthatwhenyousignedtheCL159formyouweredistractedanddidnotrealizethatyouweredeclaringthatyouhadneverofferedthevehicleforsale.

34

AttheoutsetIshouldreiteratetwoobviouspoints.IcanonlyinterferewiththedecisionsofICBCiftherehasbeenabreachofadministrativeprocessinthewayinwhichthedecisionyoucomplainofwasreached,orifattheendofthedaythefinaldecisionisclearlyunreasonable.YoudonotclaimthatadministrativeprocesswasbreachedbyICBC,soIputthatmatteraside.Instead,Iwillfocusontherealquestion:isICBC'sdecisiontodemandrecoveryoftheamountpaidouttoyouclearlyunreasonable?Thisquestionhastwofeaturesthatmustbeexamined.Thefirstis:haveyouestablishedthatyourvehiclewasstolen?WhenyoulodgedyourclaimforindemnityunderyourStoragePolicyforthetheftofyourvehicle,thefactsaspresentedbyyoudidnotarousesuspicion.ItwasonthebasisofthosefactsthatICBCsettledwithyou.ItwasonlywhenyourvehiclewasdiscoveredandrecoveredbytheAgassizRCMPthatthefactsthatyoupresentedtoICBCbecamesuspect.YourvehiclewasrecoveredfromanareaclosetoaremoteforestryserviceroadnearHarrisonLakeandthetowoperatordescribedtherecoverysiteasbeingwellhiddenasthoughthecarwasnotmeanttobediscovered.InthecarwasaForSalesignwithyourtelephonenumberonit.AmemberofICBC'sSpecialInvestigationUnit(SIU)viewedthevehicleandconcludedthatitsdoorlocksandignitionhadnotbeentamperedwith.AspartoftheSIUinvestigationalocksmithwasretainedtoexaminethevehicleandreportonthequestion,hadtheignitionbeencompromised?Thelocksmithconcludedthata"workingkeyisthemostlikelymethodofthetheft".Thelocksmithdidpointoutthatthecreatingofkeysbycodecanoccurbutitrequiresspecializedtools,knowledgeand/ortheinvolvementofothers.Uponthebasisofthelocksmith'sreport,togetherwiththelocationandthehidingofthevehicleinheavyundergrowth,atthetimeofitsrecovery,ICBCconcludedthattherewasinsufficientevidencetoestablishthatyourvehiclewasprobablystolen.YoushouldappreciatethatICBCbasesitsdecisionsuponfactsfoundasprobabilities.TheCorporationdoesnotbaseitsdecisionsuponfactsestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt,nordoesitbaseitsdecisionsuponmereconjecture.Underyourcontractofinsurancetheburdenofestablishingasaprobabilitythatyourvehiclewasstolenrestedwithyou.TheCorporation'sviewisthatinthelightofthenewfactsyouhavefailedtodothisonthebalanceofprobabilities.Theotherfactthatalsosupportedthisconclusionwasthediscoverythatyouhadindeedofferedthevehicleforsaleandhadfailedtosellit.Thefailuretoproperlydeclarethefactthatyouhadattemptedtounsuccessfullysellyourvehiclewastheformalreasonfordeclaringyoutobeinbreachofyourpolicyofinsurance.Wheredoesthistakeus?InyourlettertothisofficeyouattempttodiscredittheconclusionreachedbytheCorporationuponthebasisofthelocksmith'sreport.Youarguethatthereareanynumberofwaysinwhichmotorvehiclescanbekeydrivenwherethekeyisnotthekeyoftheowner.Thisisperhapstrue,butthequestionthatICBCisaskingis:isitmoreprobablethannotthatyouhaveestablishedthetheftofthevehicle?Inthelightofthelocationwherethevehiclewasfoundandthelocksmith'sreport,ICBCisoftheview

35

thatyouhavenotdemonstratedthatyourvehiclewasstolenasaprobability.Iamunabletoconcludethatthisdeterminationisunreasonableandthereforecannotconcludethatitisunfairtoyouinthecircumstances.YoursecondlineofargumentgoestothematterofthedeclarationthatyoumadeintheCL159formthatyouhadneverconsideredsellingortradingthevehicle.YounowadmitthatyouhadattemptedtosellthevehicleandsaythatyouhadnotcarefullyreadtheCL159formwhenyousigneditandhadnotnoticedthatparticularquestion.Havingtakenthepositionthatyoudidnotnoticethequestionbecauseyouweredistractedandthatnooneputthequestiontoyoudirectly,youundercutyourargumentatpage2ofyourlettertothisofficebythenclaimingthatyoumisunderstoodthequestionandthatyouranswerwaspremisedbythefactthatsincetheForSalesignhadbeenremovedfromthewindshieldtothebackseat,theword'"was"meaningpresenttenseandnot"was"asinhaseverbeenforsale'wasthewayinwhichyouinterpretedthequestioncontainedinformCL159.Withrespecttoyourargumentthatyouwerenottrulyawareofwhatitwasthatyouweresigningatthetime,IfindmyselfunpersuadedbyyourargumentsandfindthedecisionofICBCtoholdyouinbreachofyourinsurancecontracttobereasonableandthereforenotunfair.Wheredoesthistakeus?MyconclusionisthatyouhavenotbeendealtwithunfairlybyICBCand,inthecircumstances,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.However,youcouldtakethemattertothecourtsofthisprovince,ortotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy7:Claim‐RatedScaleanddamagestoothermotorist’svehicle(C213304)Iacknowledgereceiptofyouronlinecommunicationstothisoffice,datedSeptember2,2012,andSeptember6,2012,respectively,requestingareviewofthewayinwhichacollisionwithanothervehicle(whilstyoursonwasdrivingyourown),onMay3,2011,wasdealtwithbyICBC.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthevariouspointsthatyouhavemadeinyourcommunicationstothisoffice,togetherwithafilepreparedbytheCorporationforthepurposeofthisreviewwhichcontains,amongotherthings,afullchronologyofevents,statementsfromthetwodriversconcerned,colouredphotographsofthedamagesustainedbytheothervehicle,correspondencebetweenyouandtheCorporationrelatingtothematter,theprovisionsintheBasicInsuranceTariffrelatingtotheClaim‐RatedScaleandsomeearlierdecisionsofmyownwhichbear(somewhatobliquely)ontheClaim‐RatedScaleissues.ThefactsofthiscasearedisputedbutIadoptforthepurposeofthisreviewthosethatwerefoundbytheassessorintheClaimsAssessmentReviewofJuly7,2011.Youcontinueto

36

objecttothefindingofliabilityat100%againstyourson,butacknowledgethatIhavenojurisdictiontointerferewiththisfinding.Imerelynoteinpassingthattheassessor'sfindinginthisregardwasthesameasthatofICBCafterafullreviewofthematter.Theamountofthesettledclaimconcernsyoubecausetheinitialestimatewasconsiderablylessthanthefinalcostof$1,122.05.But,astheCorporationhasexplainedtoyou,itisnotuncommonforinitialestimatestobealteredasactualdamagewhichmayhaveinitiallybeenconcealedbecomesapparent.Becausetheshopownerwhereyoutookyourcarforrepair,onthebasisofphotographs,consideredthattheothervehiclehadpreviouslybeeninvolvedinasimilaraccidentinvolvingdamagetothesamepartofit,yourequestedinformationfromICBCrelatingtothe(alleged)prioraccident.Thedamagetotheotherparty'svehiclewasexaminedbyanICBCestimatorwhoconcludedthatitwascausedinallprobabilityasaresultofimpactwithyourvehicle.ItisnotthepracticeofICBCtoprovidecustomerswithinformationrelatingtoearlierdamagethatamotorvehiclemayhavesustainedInstead,acourtorderwouldbenecessarytoobtainthisinthecourseoflitigation.IdonotfindICBC'spracticetobeunreasonableandthereforedonotfindthatitisunfair.YournextargumentthatyouhavebeendealtwithunfairlyisuponthebasisthatthewayinwhichtheClaim‐RatedScale(CRS)wouldapplytoyoursoninthefutureamountedto"double‐dipping".Iconfess,thatIhavegreatdifficultyinfollowingyourargumentinthisrespect.InotefromthefilethatMs.ChristineBarrette,CustomerRelationsAdvisor,explainedtoyouhowtheCRSfunctionsinanemaildatedAugust22,2012.TheClaim‐RatedScale,andthewayinwhichpremiumsarecalculated,issetoutinScheduleD,oftheBasicInsuranceTariff.TheBasicInsuranceTariffhastheeffectofaRegulationinthisprovince,andIcannotgobehinditsprovisions.Onlyifacustomercan,forexample,demonstratethatsheorhehasbeendiscriminatedagainstastheresultofthewayinwhichtheCRSisappliedtohimorherdoIhavethejurisdictiontointervene.Inyourcaseyoumakenosuchargument,youmerelyassertthattheeffectsofapplyingtheCRStoyourson'scircumstancesareclearlyunfair.Iamafraidthat,whatevermyviewsinthisregard,IhavenojurisdictiontogobehindtheCRS.YoualsocomplainthatyouwerenotgivennoticeinatimelyfashionofthepayouttotheotherdriverwhichmayhaveprecludedyourabilitytorepaythatamountinordertoavoidtheCRSconsequencesofnon‐payment.IagreethatthiswasafailureonthepartoftheCorporationandthatitwouldhavebeenunfairinyourcaseifyouhadbeenprecludedfrompayingoffthethirdparty'sclaimintimetoavoidtheimpactonyourCRS.Fortunately,youweregiventheinformationjustbeforetheneedtorenewyourinsurancearose.Youdidrenewyourinsuranceafterpayingoffyourthirdpartyclaimthusavoidingthesevereadverseeffectsthatmightotherwisehaveaccrued.Whatistheupshotinyourcase?YourrealdisagreementwiththeCorporationisonthequestionofliability,andIamnotabletointerveneinthatregard.Ihavereadthefilecarefullyand,sofarasyourotherissuesareconcerned,IamunabletoconcludethatyouhavebeendealtwithunfairlybytheCorporation.Sofarasyourconcernabouttheresultsoftheaccidentfollowingyoursonfor20yearsforinsurancepurposes,Iamadvisedby

37

ICBCthatthisismerelyanotationonhisfilewhichhasnosubstantiveimpactuponhim.Intheresult,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.Ofcourse,youcouldtakethemattertothecourtsofthisprovince,oreventotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy8:principaloperatorbreach(C209331)Iacknowledgereceiptofyouronlineapplication,datedMay6,2012,foraFairnessReviewof the decision of ICBC to hold you in breach of the policy of insurance over your 1995MercuryVillagervan,byincorrectlydeclaringyourselftobethePrincipalOperatoratthetimeyoutookoutthatinsurancepolicy.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthepointsyoumakeinyourapplicationforaFairnessReview,aswellasthecontentsofafilepreparedbytheCorporationforthepurposeofthisreviewwhichcontains,amongotherthings,afullchronologyoftherelevantevents, the statements of yourself and your wife, Mrs. P., the decision of the ClaimsCoverageCommitteewhichreviewedthedecisiontodenyyoucoverage,andtherelevantregulatoryprovisionsthatapplytoyourcase.Thefactsofyourcasearefairlyclear.OnMay2,2011,Mrs.P.whilstdrivingyourMercuryVillagervanwasinvolvedinacollisionwithanothervehicleandfoundbyICBCtobe100%atfault.OnMay11,2011,youmetwithanICBCadjustorandgaveastatement.AsaresultofyourstatementyouwereadvisedthatanissuehadarisenaboutwhowasthePrincipalOperator of the Mercury Villager van. Whereas you had declared yourself to be thePrincipalOperatorwhenyoupurchasedyour insurancepolicy,yourstatement led to theconclusionthatMrs.P.wasprobablythePrincipalOperator.You were sent a warning letter dated May 11, 2011, advising you that you will beinvestigated for a possible breach of your insurance relating to the declaration that youmadethatyouwere tobe thePrincipalOperatorofyourvehicle. Thiswassubsequentlyfollowedupbya letterdatedJune21,2011,advisingyouthattheCorporationhadfoundyoutobeprobablyinbreachofyourinsurancepolicyforthereasonjuststated.BeforethatletterwassenttoyouthematterhadbeenreviewedbyaManagerandlaterwasreviewedby the Surrey Claim Office Manager. It was again reviewed by the Claims CoverageCommitteeandthedecisiontoholdyouinbreachofyourpolicyofinsurancewasaffirmed.WhatisthebasisofyourargumentthatyouhavebeenunfairlytreatedbyICBC? Youdonotclaimtohavesufferedanyadministrativefailureonthepartof theCorporation,so itcanonlybebasedupontheargumentthatICBChasdealtwithyourcaseunreasonablyandthereforeunfairly.Dothefactsbearthisout?Inmyviewtheydonot.Yousaythatwhenyoutookoutthepolicyofinsuranceyouwerenotreallyawareofwhatitwasthatyouweresigning. Thisrunscountertothefactthatyousignedtheapplicationandyouspecifically

38

initialed thatpartof it that refers to thePrincipalOperatorof thevehicle. Aswell, ICBCcontactedyourinsurancebrokerandthebrokeradvisedthatithadnotestoindicatethatthePrincipalOperatordesignationwasconfirmedwithyou.YoursecondargumentisthatMrs.P.wasnotthePrincipalOperatorofthevehicle,butyouwere. Thisgoes to thedefinitionof "PrincipalOperator"contained insection1(1)of theInsurance(Vehicle)Regulation. Itisstatedtheretomean"thepersonwhowilloperatethevehicledescribedinanapplicationforacertificateforthemajorityofthetimethevehicleisoperatedduring the termof thecertificate…." Indetermining this issue, theCorporationwasconfrontedwiththreestatements–twofromyouandonefromMrs.P..Yourfirststatement,datedMay11,2011,statesinpart,"Ihaveawhite1995VillagervanthatMrs. P. uses to go to the pizza place and to do shopping and stuff. I drive the vansometimestogetgroceriesontheweekend.But,thisisthevehiclethatMrs.P.drivesmostly…."ThereferencetothepizzaplacewastoafamilypizzabusinesswhereMrs.P.worked(apparently, not on a full time basis). You gave a second statement on June 8, 2011,subsequenttohavingbeennotifiedthatICBCwasinvestigatingwhatitfeltwasapossiblebreachofyourpolicyofinsurance.Inthisstatementyousaidinpart,"Mrs.P.usesthevanaboutonceaweektogotothepizzashoptohelpout.Shewouldgetcalledinaboutonceortwiceaweek.IdrivethevanmorethanMrs.P..AfterworkIdon'tdrivetheTacoma(anothervehiclethatyouown)soIwouldusethevanortheYaris(stillanothervehiclethatyouown)andIwoulddrivethevanonweekendstotakethefamilyoutanddothegroceryshopping…."Inherstatement, takenonJune8,2011,Mrs.P.said,"Idrivethevanonceaweekmaybe.Sometimes Iwillwalk toworkabout10minuteswalking.…When Idrive the van it is forerrandsonceaweekorsomethingbutnottowork.…Idrivethevanaboutonceaweek.Myhusbanddrives the vanonlyafterwork forhispersonal errands…." Because of languagedifficultiesthisstatementwasatranslation,andyouwereintheroomatthetime.Your second statement, which closely resembles that of Mrs. P., clearly conflicts in amaterialrespectwithwhatyousaidinyourfirststatement.InyourcasethereisnoissuewithunderstandingtheEnglishlanguage,sothatmattercanbeputaside.Wherethendoesallthistakeus?ICBCbasesitsdecisionsuponwhatitperceivestobetheprobablefactsofthecase. Isitunreasonableinthesecircumstancestoconcludethatyouwereprobablyinbreachofyourpolicyofinsurancewhenyoumadethedeclarationatthetime of taking it out that youwould be the Principal Operator of the vehicle? I cannotconcludethatitis.Thefactsinthefilerevealthatyouprobablyunderstoodtheobligationsinvolved indeclaringyourself tobe theprincipal operatorof thevehicle at the timeyoutookoutyourpolicyofinsurance,andthatMrs.P.(ratherthanyourself)wasintendedtobethePrincipalOperatorasdefined in section1of the Insurance (Vehicle)Regulation. Onecannotalsobeunmindfulof the fact thatby falselydeclaringyourself tobe thePrincipalOperatorofyourvehicle,youincurredapremiumsavingintheamountof$668.Inthesecircumstances, I amnotpersuaded thatyouhavedemonstrated that ICBChasdealtwithyouunfairlyinconcludingthatyourmisrepresentationbreachedyourpolicyofinsurance.

39

Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.But,thisneednotbetheendofthematter.Youcouldtakeyourcasetothecourtsofthisprovince, or to the Office of the Provincial Ombudsperson, which has a much widerjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy9:EscalatingDeductibleProgram(C212935)IacknowledgereceiptofyouronlinerequestforaFairnessReview,datedAugust20,2012,ofICBC'sdecisiontoofferyouoptionalOwnDamageCollisionandComprehensivecoveragewithaminimum$2500deductiblerelatingtoCollisionandComprehensivecoverage.ThisresultedfromICBCplacingyourpolicyintheEscalatedDeductibleProgram(EDP).InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthepointsthatyouhavemadeinyourreviewrequest,aswellasthecontentsofafilepreparedforthepurposeofthisreviewbyICBC,whichincludesthefullchronologyofevents,informationrelatingtotheEDPandthewayinwhichitappliestocustomers,aswellasearlierdecisionsofmyownrelatingtotheEDP.

Thefacts,atleastasICBCunderstandsthem,aresetoutintheletterdatedJuly12,2012,toyoufromMs.DebbyRaffard,CustomerRelationsAdvisor.InsupportofyourclaimthatyouhavebeenunfairlydealtwithbyICBCyoumakeanumberofadditionalsubmissions.Youpointoutthatgiventheareathatyoulivein,therisksofcollisionwithwildlifeareconstantandthatnoneofthecollisionsthatformthebasisofplacingyouintotheEDPwereyourfault.But,theEDPisnotrelatedtothecustomer'sdrivingrecordbaseduponfault,butismerelyaresponsetothecustomer'sperceivedelevatedriskofclaimsbaseduponhisorherclaimhistory.Itisamechanismdesignedtoensurethatthosewhodriveincircumstancesofhigherriskbearacostthatreflectsthisratherthanimposingthatcostuponallothercustomerswhodonotdriveinthosecircumstances.ItshouldbeborneinmindthattheEDPonlyappliestocomprehensivecoveragewhichisoptional.NocustomerofICBCisrequiredtopurchasecomprehensivecoveragefromtheCorporation.Instead,thecustomercangototheopeninsurancemarketandpurchasesuchcoverageifitispreferred.Youalsocomplainthatyouweregivenno"priorwarning"oftheEDPapplyingtoyouuponrenewalofyourinsurancewiththeCorporation.Inotethattherenewalreminderthatwassenttoyoucontainedaspecificwarninginthethirdlastparagraphofthesecondpage,andthatyoureceivedaspecificletteradvisingyouthatyouwillbecoveredbytheEDPifyourenewyourcomprehensiveinsurancewiththeCorporation,byletterdatedJune12,2012.Aswell,onAugust10,2011,thedateofyourpolicyrenewal,theAutoplanbrokerreceivedanelectronicerrorcodeprompttoadviseyouofthepossibilitythatyourpolicymaybeplacedintheEDPifanothercomprehensiveclaimwasprocessed.Iamnotpersuadedthat

40

youhaveestablishedthatICBChasunreasonablyfailedtoadviseyouofyourriskofplacementintheEDP.YoualsoarguethatICBChasdealtwithyouunreasonablybynotprovidingyouwithsomesortofformularevealingexactlywhyyourcomprehensiveclaimsdeductiblehasbeensetat$2500ratherthansomelesseramount.TheRiskUnderwritingDepartmentoftheCorporationbasesthedecisiontochangesomeone'sdeductibleontheirpolicyonanindividualassessmentoftheclaimshistoryunderthatpolicy.Theactualdeductibleofferedwilldependontheindividualcircumstances,includingthenumberandtypeofclaimsandtheamountpaidforeachclaim.Thereisnoformulainthesenseofatable,andIamunabletoconcludethatthe$2500deductibleofferedtoyouisunreasonable,particularlyinthelightoftherangeofpaymentsthatICBChasmadeinthefourcomprehensiveclaimsyoumadebetweenJanuary26,2010,andNovember4,2011.YoualsofeelthereissomesignificanceinthefactthatyouarelocatedinWestKootenayandsomecorrespondencereferredtoEastKootenay.TheKootenayreferenceisreallyirrelevant,itistheTerritorywhichissignificant.BothKootenaysareinTerritoryNandtheaverageclaimofcustomersinTerritoryNisoneclaimeverynineyears.Thisshouldbecontrastedtoyourfourclaimsoveratwoyearperiod.Intheresult,Iamunabletoconcludethatofferingyoua$2500deductibleforfuturecomprehensiveclaimsisunfair.Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.

Iwoulddrawyourattention,however,tothefactthatyoucouldgototheprivateinsurancemarketandattempttogetabetterrateforyourOwnDamageComprehensiveinsurance.Youcouldalsotakeyourcasetothecourtsofthisprovince,ortheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasawiderjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy10:paymentofdeductible(C205929)IacknowledgereceiptofyourrequestforaFairnessReviewofthewayinwhichICBCdealtwiththedeductiblecosttoyouassociatedwiththedamagesustainedbyyour2000DodgeNeononFebruary4,2011,ontheCoquihallaHighway.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccounttheextensivesubmissionthatyouhavemadetotheofficeoftheB.C.Ombudsperson,aswellascorrespondencethatyouhavehadwiththeMinistryofTransportationandInfrastructure,andV.Ltd.IhavealsotakenintoaccountthecontentsofafilepreparedbytheCorporationforthepurposeofthisreviewthatsetsoutthefullchronologyofevents.Iwillnotgooverthefactsofyourcaseinanydetail.Theycanbeshortlysummarizedinthefollowingway:whilstdrivingnorthontheCoquihallaHighwayyoustruckalargepotholewhichcauseddamagetotwotiresandrimsonyourmotorvehicle.The

41

replacementcostrelatingtothedamagewas$451.04andyourpolicyofinsurancecarrieda$300deductible.Accordingly,youwerereimbursedintheamountof$151.04onMarch8,2011.Youattemptedtoobtainreimbursementforthecosttoyouofthe$300deductiblecarriedbyyourpolicyofinsurancefromboththeprovincialMinistryofTransportationandInfrastructure,andthecompanyresponsibleformaintainingthatpartoftheCoquihallaHighway,V.Ltd.Yourattemptswereunsuccessful.YouhavesinceturnedtoICBCandattemptedtopersuadeICBCthatitwasunderanobligationtopursuereimbursementtoyouofthe$300deductiblefromeitherorbothofthetwopartiesreferredtoabove.Infact,ICBCexerciseditsgoodofficesandattemptedtoobtainthecostofthedeductiblesinvolvedinallthecasesofcustomerswhosevehicleshadbeendamagedasaresultoftheirvehiclesrunningintothepothole.But,theseattemptswerefruitless.IfIunderstandyourfairnessargumentcorrectly,itisthatICBCshouldbeyouragentinattemptstorecoverthedeductiblecostsandisobligedtopursuerecoveryonyourbehalf,notmerelybyextending"goodoffices"butbytakinglegalactionagainstthehighwaycontractorand/ortheprovincialhighwayauthority.IconfessthatIamsomewhattakenabackbyyourlineofargument.Myunderstandingofthelegalpositionisthatunderyourcontractofinsuranceyouareableonlytorecoverdamagecoveredbythepolicylesstheamountofwhateverdeductibleyouhavecontractedfor.InanylegalactionbaseduponsubrogationbyICBCagainsttheB.C.highwaysauthorityorthemaintenancecompany,ICBCwouldonlyrecoverwhateveritwaslegallyobligedtopayouttotheinsuredcustomeranddidinfactpayout.Ifthecustomerwantedtorecoverforthedeductiblecosts,thecustomerwouldbeobligedtobringaseparateactionagainstthedefendantsfortheamountofthedeductible.Ifmyanalysisofthesituationiscorrect,IamunabletoseehowitcanbesaidthatICBChasdealtwithyouunfairlybyfailingtobringanactiontorecoverasumofmoneyforyou,whichithasnolegalrighttodo.So,withrespecttoyour$300deductibleIamunabletofindanyunfairnessonthepartoftheCorporationinthewayinwhichithasdealtwiththematter.Itappearstomethatyouseemtobemakingamoregeneralargumentaswell.YouseemtobesayingthatitisunfairforICBCnottobringsuitagainstthehighwayauthorityandthehighwaymaintenancecompanytorecoverthenon‐deductiblecoststhathavebeenincurredasaresultofitsvariouscustomerssustainingdamageasaresultofthepothole.InthisregardyouhavehadthematterexplainedtoyoubyICBCinsomedetail.WhetherornottheCorporationelectstopursueasubrogatedactionis,inmyview,outsidemyjurisdiction.ThefactorsthattheCorporationhastotakeintoaccountindeterminingthecosteffectivenessofsuchanactionaremanyandvarious–nottheleastofwhichisthelikelihoodorunlikelihoodofsuccess.Inthepresentcircumstances,giventhatcustomershavealreadybeenreimbursedfortheiractualdamagelesstheirdeductible,andthattheCorporationcouldnotpursueinasubrogatedactionrecoveryofthatdeductible,IamunabletoseeanyroomfortheargumentthatIhavejurisdictionoverthematteratall.

42

AttheendofthedayIamunabletoconcludethatyouhavebeendealtwithunfairlybyICBC.Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.Ofcourse,youarefreetotakethematteruponcemorewiththeOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown,oreventheSmallClaimsCourtofthisprovince.Beforetakingthislattercourse,however,Iurgeyoutoseektheadviceofalawyer.

43

AppendixE:ExamplesofNon‐JurisdictionalCases

InadditiontothoseissuesthattheFairnessCommissionerhasreviewed,therearematterswhichtheCommissionerhasruledtobeoutsideofhisjurisdictionasperhisTermsofReference(AppendixG).AfewexamplesofletterswrittentocustomersbytheFairnessCommissionerhavebeenprovidedtoillustratewhatothermattershavebeendirectedtotheFairnessCommissionerwhicharebeyondhisjurisdiction.

Case1:litigatedmatter(C209443)“IacknowledgereceiptofyourapplicationforaFairnessReviewofthedecisionofICBCtofindyouinbreachofyourpolicyofinsurancerelatingtoacollisiononNovember10,2010,thatyourmotorvehiclewasinvolvedin.Unfortunately,mytermsofreferenceexcludemyjurisdictionifamatterhasbeenreferredtoacourt.IhavebeenadvisedbyICBCthatyourlawyerissuedawritonMay3,2012,relatingtothismatter.Accordingly,Idonothavejurisdictiontodealwithyourcase.” Case2:decisionsmadebythecourtsregardingcourtorderedcosts(C213733)“IacknowledgereceiptofyourletterofSeptember3,2012,requestingaFairnessReviewofthedecisionofICBCtoenforcetheawardofcostsmadeagainstyoubytheB.C.SupremeCourt,relatingtothedecisionofthatCourtholdingyouresponsibleforthesinglevehicleaccidentthatoccurredonMarch4,2000.Myjurisdictionprecludesmefromdealingwithanymatterrelatingtoacourtdecision,soIamafraidthatIcannotaddressthesubstantiveissuethatconcernsyou.Iwill,however,forthesakeofclaritycommentontwomattersthatyouhaveraised.Youseemtoarguethatthereissomesortofestoppelbecausethechequebywhichyoupaidthesubstantiveawardmadeagainstyoucontainedonitsfacethestatementthatitwasincompletesettlementofcourtcosts.Althoughitisaquestionoflawratherthanoneoffairness,Iamunawareofanydoctrinethatwouldenableonepartytoimposeanestoppeluponanotherbymerelywritingonachequemadeouttosatisfyasubstantivecourtjudgmentthatitalsosatisfiesthecosts.YoualsocomplainatthetimeittookICBCtofigureoutitscostsandtobillyouforthem.InthisregardIwouldmerelypointoutthatpursuanttotheLimitationsActofthisprovinceICBChas10yearsinwhichtopresentandenforceitsaccounttoyouinthisrespect.IfearthatIamunabletodealwithyourapplicationonaccountofmylackofjurisdiction.”

44

Case3:liabilitydecision(C205498)“IacknowledgereceiptofyourelectronicapplicationforaFairnessReviewofthedecisionofICBCtofindyoutobe100%atfaultforthemotorvehiclecollisionthatyouwereinvolvedinonJune28,2011.Youweredrivingyoursister'sHondaCivicand,whilstmakingaU‐turn,wereinvolvedinacollisionwithanotherHondaCivic.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccounttheveryextensivelegalanalysisandsupportingmaterialthatyouhaveprovidedinordertorebuttheCorporation'sconclusionthatyouare100%atfaultforthecollision,aswellasthedecisionoftheClaimsAssessmentReview,datedOctober31,2011,thatupheldtheCorporation'sfindingastoyourliability.Attheendoftheday,however,IhavetoconcludethatIhavenojurisdictiontodealwithyourcase.Mytermsofreference,whichareappendedtotheAnnualReportsoftheICBCFairnessCommissioner,statequiteclearlythatmyjurisdictiondoesnotincludecomplaintsordisputesthatrelatesolelyorprimarilyto…theassessmentofliability.Yet,itistheliabilityassessmentthatyouwantmetoreview.Aswell,thebasisforsuchareviewliesonyourinterpretationofwhatyousayisthelawthatshouldhaveappliedinyourcase.Iamafraidthatthisisclearlyoutsidemypurview,asaFairnessCommissioner.Thesortofargumentthatyouareraisingcanonlybeproperlymadeinacourtoflaw.Theresultis,Ifear,thatImustdeclinejurisdictioninthisinstance.Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffectthepresentoutcomeofyourcase.Therearesomeoptions,however,thatareopentoyou.YoucouldtakeyourcasetotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown,oryoucouldtakeyourcasetothecourtsofthisprovince.”Case4:reviewofstreetracingconviction(C208983)“IacknowledgereceiptofyourletterofApril24,2012,requestingareviewofICBC'sdecisiontonotopenupthematterofyour"streetracing"convictionrelatingtoeventsthattookplacein2003.IamafraidthatIamunabletoassistyouinthisrespectbecausemyjurisdictionisconfinedtoexaminingthedecisionsandpracticesofICBC.ICBCismerelythegatekeeperwhenitcomestoissuesrelatingtomotorvehicleinfractions.Ithasthestatutoryresponsibilityofmaintainingrecords,butithasnojurisdictiontointerferewiththesubstantivecontentreflectedinsuchrecords.Onlythecourtsofthisprovincecanoverturnyourconviction.Inthisregard,Idourgeyoutoseeklegaladvicebeforeproceedingfurther.

45

TheupshotisthatImustdeclinejurisdictiontoengageinanoverviewofyourcase.”Case5:reviewofdrivingsuspension(C215082) “I acknowledge receipt of your application, dated October 27, 2012, for a review of the decision of the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to require you to remain in the Graduated Licensing Program for a further two years, as a result of your one month driving suspension for failing to display an N sign on your vehicle whilst driving it. Unfortunately, I do not have jurisdiction to review this matter. When you had your case reviewed by the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, and the time of your suspension was reduced from four months to one month, the ICBC employee acted in the capacity of reviewer as being so on behalf of the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and not ICBC. I am confined to fairness reviews that relate to ICBC decisions, etc. In these circumstances I am afraid that I must decline jurisdiction.”

46

AppendixF:Statisticsfrom2010–2012Thefollowingnumbersarebasedonfilesclosedfrom2010to2012(JantoDec):(Percentagesmaynotsumto100%duetorounding) 2010 2011 2012ClaimsServices 105 52% 92 60% 89 40%Autoplan 30 15% 19 13% 51 23%AccountServices(formerlyCollections) 29 14% 22 14% 36 16%

DriverLicensing 18 9% 13 8% 27 12%ServiceQuality 13 6% 2 1% 8 4%VehicleRegistration 3 2% 3 1%RoadSafety 1 1% 1 1% 3 1%Privacy&FreedomofInformation

3 1% 2 1% 1 1%

VehicleLicensing 1 1%CommercialVehicleServices 1 1% NotICBC 3 1% 2 1%Total 203 154 221 100%

ClaimsServices–FairnessCommissionerrelatedConcernsbySub‐Categories

2010 2011 2012Coveragedenied 35 34% 31 34% 28 32%Liabilitydisputes 22 21% 23 25% 17 19%Repairs 12 11% 10 11% 14 16%Claimhandlingprocess 8 8% 9 10% 7 8%Injurymanagement 1 1% 2 2% 6 7%Settlement 6 6% 8 9% 4 5%Totaltheft 6 6% 3 3% 4 4%Hitandrun~uninsured 4 4% 2 2% 4 4%TotalLoss 5 5% 2 2% 3 3%Rentalvehicle 1 1% 1 1% 1 1%Externalserviceproviders 2 1% 1 2% 1 1%Inforequest 1 1%Comprehensive(otherthantheft) 2 1% Total 105 92 89

47

Autoplan‐FairnessCommissionerrelatedConcernsbySub‐Categories 2010 2011 2012Claim‐RatedScale(CRS) 14 47% 6 32% 17 33%Policycancellationsrefunds 2 7% 5 26% 11 22%Costofinsurance 1 3% 6 12%Policydetails 7 23% 4 21% 5 10%Insurancecoverages 1 5% 5 10%Premiumdiscounts 1 3% 1 5% 2 4%Autoplan12&6 2 4%ICBCPaymentPlanfinancing 1 5% 1 2%MultipleCrashPremium(MCP) 1 2%Miscellaneoustransactions 3 10% 1 2%Brokerservices 2 7% Vehicleregistrationfraud 1 5% Total 14 19 51

DriverLicensing–FairnessCommissionerRelatedConcernsbySub‐Categories 2010 2011 2012Exams(writtenorroadtest) 2 11% 3 23% 7 26%Driver’slicenceIDrequirements 7 39% 4 31% 5 18%RefusetoissueBCDL 6 33% 2 15% 5 18%GraduatedLicensingProgram 3 17% 1 8% 4 15%Driver’slicenceissuance 3 11%Vehicleanddriverrecords 1 7% 1 4%Driver’slicencestatus 1 4%Movingin/outofprovince 1 4%Vehicleimpoundment 2 15% Total 18 13 27 AccountServices–FairnessCommissionerRelatedConcernsbySub‐Categories 2010 2011 2012Claimrecoverydebt 13 45% 6 27% 11 31%Insurancepremiumdebt 5 17% 5 23% 8 22%DRP(DriverRiskPremium)debt 5 17% 3 14% 6 17%DPP(DriverPointPremium)debt 2 7% 2 9% 6 17%Finesdebt 4 14% 5 23% 4 11%MCP(MultipleCrashPremium)debt 1 3%Governmentdebt 1 5% DriverLicensing 29 22 36

48

AppendixG:TermsofReferencefortheICBCFairnessCommissioner STATEMENTOFPURPOSE1. ICBCisapubliclyownedandcustomerdrivenorganization.Assuch,itrecognizesthe

valueofhavingaprocesstoindependentlyreviewthefairnessofitsactions.Toachievethisgoal,theFairnessCommissionerwillreviewandmakerecommendationswithrespecttounresolvedcustomercomplaintsthatrelatetothefairnessoftheprocessleadingtoadecisionoraction,butwithoutduplicatingexistinginternalorexternaldisputeresolutionprocesses.Animportantcomponentofafairnessreviewisthatitbecompletedinatimelymanner.Accordingly,theFairnessCommissioner’sreviewshouldbethoroughbutstraightforwardenoughthatrecommendationsmaybemadewithoutunduedelay.

SCOPE2. An"unresolvedcustomercomplaint"is:

a. acomplaintaboutthefairnessofanICBCdecision,actionorpracticeasithasbeenappliedtoacustomer;

b. madeinwriting(withtheassistanceofICBCstaffifnecessary)byanICBCcustomer,where"customer"includesthosewhoaredirectlyaffectedbyanICBCdecision,actorfailuretoactinanyofitslinesofbusiness,andinwhichthecustomeragreestothetermssetoutinsection9b)oftheseTermsofReference;and

c. notresolvedtothecustomer’ssatisfactionafterareasonableeffortbythecustomertoaddresstheircomplaintthroughICBC’sinternalcomplaintresolutionprocessesincludingICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartmentbutdoesnotinclude:

i. complaintsbysuppliers,brokersoremployeesofICBCthatarisefromtheircontractoremploymentwithICBC;

ii. complaintsordisputesthatrelatesolelyorprimarilytotheamountofafinalpayment,claimsettlementorassessmentofliability;

iii. complaintsconcerningthedispositionofaviolationticketissuedbyapeaceofficeremployedbyICBC,ortheconductofapeaceofficeremployedbyICBC;

iv. complaintsthatrelatetodecisionsmadebyorareatthediscretionoftheBoard;

v. amatterthatisreferredtoacourt,astatutorytribunalortoarbitration;acourtdecision,adecisionofastatutorytribunalortheresultofanarbitration;

vi. complaintsconcerningtheadviceorconductoflawyers;andvii. mattersthatfallwithintheprincipaljurisdictionofstatutorydecision

makerssuchastheHumanRightsTribunal.

49

CONDUCTOFREVIEW3. Uponreceivinganunresolvedcustomercomplaintforreview,theCommissionermay

doanyofthefollowing:a. ReferthemattertotheappropriatedepartmentofICBCwithorwithout

recommendations;b. RecommendthatICBC’sManager,CustomerRelationsconductaninvestigation;c. Facilitatearesolutionofthecomplaintswiththecomplainantandthe

appropriateICBCpersonnel;d. Recommendthatthecomplaintproceedtomediationorarbitration;e. SeektheassistanceoftheExecutiveorBoardofDirectorsofICBC;f. Conductaninvestigationofthecomplaint;g. Grouptogethercomplaintsofasimilarnatureandconductasinglereviewofthe

issueorissuesraisedbysuchcomplaints;andh. WiththeconsentofICBCandthecomplainant,actasmediatorwithrespectto

thecomplaint,inwhichcasetheCommissionermaynolongercontinuetoconductaninvestigationorreviewormakeanyfindingsorrecommendationswithrespecttothecomplaint.

4. IftheCommissionerrequiresanydocumentsorinformationfromICBCthatthe

Commissionerconsidersmightassistintheconductofaninvestigation,ICBCwillpromptlymakeeveryreasonableefforttoprovidetherequireddocumentsorinformationtotheCommissioner,subjecttotheFreedomofInformationandProtectionofPrivacyActandanyotherlawgoverningthedisclosureofpersonalinformation.

5. Anypartythatmaybeadverselyaffectedbyaninvestigationorrecommendationmustbegiventimelynotificationandanadequateandappropriateopportunitytorespondtoanyissuesraisedandanypossiblefindingsorrecommendationsbeforetheyarefinalizedorpublished.Withoutlimitingtheprevioussentence,iftheCommissionerintendstorecommendaremedythathasnotbeensuggestedbythepartiestheCommissionerwillgivebothpartiestheopportunitytorespondtotheproposedremedybeforemakinganyfindingsorrecommendations.

6. IftheCommissionerconsidersitappropriate,evidencemaybetakenfromthecomplainantorarepresentativeofICBCunderoathoraffirmation,eitherverballyorinwriting,butnopersonmaybecompelledtogivesuchevidence.

COMPLETIONOFREVIEW7. AtanystageinthereviewofanunresolvedcustomercomplainttheCommissionermay:

a. RecommendthatanICBCactionordecisionbereconsideredb. RecommendthatanexceptionbemadetoanICBCpolicyorprocedure,having

regardtotheimpactthatmakingsuchanexceptionmayhaveonothercustomers

50

c. RecommendthatanICBCpolicyorprocedurebestudiedorreviewedbytheBoardofDirectorsofICBC,orthatnewpoliciesorproceduresbeadoptedtoaddresscustomerneeds

d. MakeareporttotheExecutiveorBoardofDirectorsofICBCwithrespecttothefindingsofaninvestigation;and

e. DeterminethatnofurtheractionorinvestigationisrequiredIftheCommissionermakesareportorrecommendation,theCommissionermustconcurrentlystateinwritingthereasonsfortherecommendation,includingadescriptionoftheproceduralunfairnessthatledtotherecommendationorreport.IfICBCdeclinestofollowarecommendation,itmuststatetotheCommissioner,inwriting,itsreasonsfordoingso.

8. ICBCwilldesignateamemberofitsseniorexecutivetoactasICBC’sliaisonwiththeCommissioner.TheCommissionermaybringanyconcernswithrespecttotheimplementationofarecommendationtotheattentionoftheexecutiveliaison.

CONFIDENTIALITY

9. Recognizingthatanyunresolvedcustomercomplaintcouldlaterbecomethesubjectof

litigation,andinformationordocumentsreceivedinthecourseofreviewinganunresolvedcustomercomplaintshouldnotloseanyclaimofprivilegewhichmayattachtothem:

a. TheCommissioner,his/herstaffandanyindividuals,includinglegalcounsel,retainedbytheCommissionertoassisthim/herinperforminghis/herdutieswill:

i. MaintaintheconfidentialityofallinformationanddocumentsprovidedtotheCommissioner;

ii. Notdisclosetoanyperson,includingtheotherparty,anyinformationordocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionerbyICBCorthecomplainantwithouttheconsentofthepartywhoprovidedtheinformationordocumenthavingbeenobtainedinadvance;

iii. Ifappropriate,obtainawrittenagreementfromICBCorthecomplainantthatanyconfidentialinformationordocumentssharedwiththemwillbekeptinstrictconfidenceandnotdisclosedtoanyotherpersonunlessrequiredbylaw;and

iv. Notrefertoanyinformationordocumentsinanycorrespondence,reportorrecommendationswithouttheconsentofthepartywhoprovidedtheinformationordocumenthavingbeenobtainedinadvance.

b. ICBCagrees,andthecomplainantwillagreewhenmakingtheunresolved

customercomplaint,thattheywillnotrequesttheCommissioner,his/herstaffandanyindividuals,includinglegalcounsel,retainedbytheCommissionertoassisthim/herinperforminghis/herdutiesbecompelledasawitnessincourtorinanyproceedingsofajudicialnatureinrespectofanythingcomingtothe

51

Commissioner’sknowledgeasaresultofanythingdonepursuanttotheseTermsofReference.

REPORTING10. TheCommissionershallprepareanannualreportfortheBoardofDirectorsandshall

deliverthatreporttotheGovernanceCommitteeoftheBoard.TheCommissionershallappearbeforetheGovernanceCommitteetodiscussthereportandshallalsoappearbeforethatCommitteeortheBoardatanyothertimetheCommitteeortheBoardmayrequestortheCommissionerconsidersnecessary,withrespectto:

a. TheactivitiesoftheCommissioner;b. TheadequacyofICBC’sresponsestotheCommissioner’sinvestigationsand

recommendations,includingadiscussionofthenumberofhis/herrecommendationsthatwerenotacceptedbyICBCandtheexplanationsgivenbyICBCfordecliningtoadoptthem;and

c. CircumstancesthattheCommissionerbelievesrequiretheBoard’sreviewofaspecificpolicyorprocedure.

11. AfterreportingtotheBoardandpermittingtheBoardanopportunitytorespond

withinaperiodoftimethathe/sheconsidersreasonable,theCommissionermay,subjecttoArticle7oftheseTermsofReference,makeapublicreportinrespectofthematterssetoutinArticle10.