Article content continued

The government could appeal the ruling or craft new legislation, said Eby.

The decision overturns cabinet orders made in February that limit ICBC and plaintiff lawyers in automobile injury court cases to only one expert each and one report each for fast-track claims valued less than $100,000, and up to three experts and three reports each for all other claims. Expert reports include those on medical conditions and lost wages.

The cap was billed as a way to save money. ICBC lost $2.5 billion during the past two years, due to rising claims and legal costs. Before the court ruling, it had been projected to stabilize to a $50 million loss this fiscal year, ending March 31.

“I find that the impugned rule infringes on the court’s core jurisdiction to control its process, because it restricts a core function of the court to decide a case fairly upon the evidence adduced by the parties,” Hinkson wrote in his ruling. “The effect of the impugned rule is to require the court to play an investigatory function in place of its traditional non-adversarial role.”

Eby said he’s confused as to why B.C. can’t mirror countries like the United Kingdom or Australia, where there are limits or outright bans on adversarial expert witnesses in auto insurance cases.

“My concern is that the decision has erected a constitutional fence around this broken system,” he said.

The court challenge was brought by B.C. driver Gregory Crowder, who was rear-ended by a tractor trailer in 2017, leaving with traumatic brain injuries, among other medical problems. He alleged the limit on medical reports would have made it impossible to fully outline the scope of his injuries and the lifetime of future medical care he requires.

B.C.’s Trial Lawyers Association — which represents personal injury lawyers opposed to government’s ICBC reforms — joined the case and called the government changes a legal overreach.

“It was an overreach in the sense it was unfair,” said Ron Nairne, president of the Trial Lawyers Association. “The more seriously injured a person is, the more they were harmed by this new rule.”