1.   when presented with this information, the ICBC Fairness Commissioner found there was no unfair treatment of Ms.A.S..
2.  the Information and Privacy Commissioner likewise found further disclosure of the ICBC records would be harmful to their economic interests.
3.  the Law Society of BC found the evidence insufficient to take action.
4.  the RCMP dismissed the ICBC and Court documents as irrelevant.
5.  a letter of appeal to the Chief of the Law Society and copied to the Chief Justice of BC was dismissed by the former and ignored by the latter.
6.  several other lawyers were approached to try and obtain redress for Ms. A.S..All declined to become involved.

The smell of this case as a cover up is strong. One may therefore conclude that misconduct by ICBC and lawyers is easily perpetrated, especially on the disabled. Unethical behavior by those organizations does not appear to result in any punitive consequences. Self regulation by the Law Society is proclaimed, but in fact the Society’s purpose is to protect their members. Lawyers look after their own first, and the public bears the cost. Can anything be done about the shameful, even corrupt conduct of these powerful organizations ? Victims need to come forward, via Twitter, Facebook and the web. Examples of abuse should be directed to the Premier of BC, the Solicitor General re ICBC, the Attorney General re the Law Society and the Opposition Leader in the Legislature. If at least some of the multitude of people wronged by the system make their stories known, perhaps the politicians will take corrective action and amend the law. We, the public, must demand action.
For example, a laymen panel of ordinary citizens could be empowered to override the questionable, disputed decisions of ICBC and the Law Society. They would have the power to make the final decision in the appeal process. As many would agree, self regulation for public service bodies does not work well. Lawyers reviewing the actions of other lawyers is a sham. ICBC decisions on claims need a better appeal process than advising the claimant to hire a lawyer. If people with genuine complaints about ICBC and personal injury lawyers would share their stories on the Ripoffreport site and if they would send their grievances to the politicians………would real change occur ? Lets find out ! Participate ! Email addresses for the politicians are readily available on the BC Gov’t website.
Primary contact for the AG is Sarah Harrison
Primary contact for the Solicitor Gen. is Julianne McCaffrey
The premier has a dedicated address
The Opposition Leader is Adrian Dix.

Note: This report was submitted by User306731 on ScamInformer

While no details are in place, the concept has been raised for a system in which lower-risk drivers would pay less.

“Customers advise ICBC that low-risk drivers should pay less, and that high-risk drivers should pay more,” said the organization’s tender document, issued Friday.

“ICBC has been using the claim-rated scale (CRS) since 1982 to assess driver risk and help set premiums. However, even with modifications to CRS in 2001, CRS does not effectively differentiate pricing for highrisk and low-risk customers. To move toward rates more reflective of risk, the corporation is considering replacing its existing system.”

ICBC is treading carefully. The corporation backed down in May from a plan that would have led drivers to pay higher premiums after only one traffic violation. Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor-General Shirley Bond told ICBC officials its plan was not reasonable.

Bids close Sept. 12 for the job to design, implement and report on results of a public engagement strategy. It would include a range of ways for the public to share ideas. The contract is expected to start in October.

“We are just at the very beginning of this process and we don’t know how it is going to end. But we are certainly looking forward to engaging the people of B.C. to hear their thoughts on the best way forward,” said Mark Jan Vrem, ICBC spokesman.

A time line to make a decision has not been determined.

Surveys have shown support for the risk-based idea. Now ICBC is aiming for wider public engagement to bring in comments and “to gauge the level of support for risk-based pricing and changes that make the most sense and have the most significance to British Columbians,” the tender document said.

In July and August of this year, RCMP around the region have handed out more than 2,040 tickets to drivers who won’t put away their cellphones.

That’s up sharply from the 1,200 tickets that were given out in the same time period last year, when the new rules against driving while using electronic devices were fresh in people’s minds.

“Distracted drivers are the number one cause of [traffic] fatalities in the Lower Mainland,” said Superintendent Norm Gaumont, head of the RCMP’s regional traffic services.

Drivers who are paying attention to things other than the road in front of them cause about 40 per cent of deadly accidents.

Distracted drivers cause more fatal accidents than drunk drivers, and using a cellphone is one of most common causes, he said.

“You can’t afford to be looking anywhere else except for in front of you,” Gaumont said. “God forbid that you’re talking or texting and you end up killing somebody.”

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Metro+Vancouver+drivers+still+getting+ticketed+driving+talking+cellphones/5306911/story.html#ixzz1WAaJRrSg

Jaspal Singh Atwal, Vikram Singh Atwal, Jasraj Singh Bains and Jagjit Singh Gill were sued by the Insurance Corp. of B.C. for their roles in a scheme to make phoney Alberta registration documents for stolen vehicles and resell them. The Aug. 15 decision found the four defendants liable for nearly $345,000 in special and punitive damages.

Another four defendants and one business were also sued and found liable for damages for their roles in acquiring some of the stolen vehicles. The damages will help recover costs incurred by ICBC in relation to 11 vehicles stolen in 2002 and 2003.

The scheme was fairly simple, as illustrated by the case of one of the stolen cars, a grey 2002 Audi S6.

The luxury sports car was reported stolen by its lessee on April 4, 2003; by April 9, Alberta registration papers had been created for the car, giving it a fake vehicle identification number and a fake owner, “John Oliver.”

These documents were taken to Sussex Insurance in Burnaby along with a false private vehicle-inspection report. A Sussex agent prepared a form transferring the auto from “John Oliver” to a friend as a gift.

On April 22, 2003, the car was imported to the United States by Riad Iskandar Youssef and International Autohaus. On May 6, 2003, Washington police recovered the vehicle from Mount Baker Auto Sales in Ferndale.

ICBC later sold the recovered vehicle for $57,551, recovering some of the $91,342 it had paid to lessor VW Credit Canada Inc. after the vehicle was stolen.

In his ruling, Justice Austin F. Cullen found Jasraj Bains, Riad Youssef and International Autohaus jointly and severally liable for $33,791, which covers ICBC’s losses.

Many of the vehicles caught up in the scheme – including a Cadillac, two Audis, and five Ford F-350s – command high prices. But Cullen said he had no way to know how much money the defendants had made.

“However,” he wrote in his ruling, “I am satisfied that the combination of special and punitive damages that I have awarded is adequate to deter and denounce the behaviour …”

Cullen noted that ICBC was not the scheme’s only victim. “The public, through the police, were compelled to make significant expenditures in time, effort, and money to investigate and recover the vehicles … It is clear that the plaintiff will not recover all of its costs, nor will the motoring public.”

The decision concludes the second and third of five civil actions that ICBC has launched against 89 conspirators of the fraud ring. A 2010 decision ordered defendants that included the two Atwals to pay more than $300,000 in connection with the false registration and sale of stolen vehicles.

In last week’s case (Singh v. McHatten) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 motor vehicle collision.  Following the collision ICBC found the Plaintiff at fault.  Displeased with this decision, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants in small claims court asking the Court to decide the issue of liability.  The Plaintiff sought damages for his deductible and increased insurance premiums.  His trial succeeded with the Court finding the Defendants at fault and awarding damages to the Plaintiff.

Before the limitation period expired the Plaintiff sued for damages stemming from his personal injuries from the same collision.  He did so in the BC Supreme Court.  ICBC brought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that the Plaintiff was “estopped” from suing again due to the small claims court trial.  Madam Justice Loo disagreed and allowed the personal injury lawsuit to proceed.  In dismissing ICBC’s motion the Court provided the following reasons:

[31] In my view the cause of action in the prior Small Claims action is distinct from the cause of action in this Court. While the Notice of Claim filed by the plaintiff in Small Claims Court claimed “vehicle damage & repair costs”, it is clear on a review of the transcript of the proceedings that the plaintiff’s vehicle had been repaired by ICBC; he was not seeking damages for repair costs because ICBC had paid the repair costs. The primary issue was ICBC’s determination that the plaintiff was wholly at fault for the accident and the plaintiff’s increased insurance premiums. Counsel for the plaintiff made it clear that the claim for personal injuries and damages would be dealt with later, and that was understood by counsel for ICBC. On that basis neither the third nor the fourth criteria for cause of action estoppel, or the first criteria for issue estoppel have been met.

[32] The facts of this case are similar to the facts in Innes v. Bui and Evans v. Campbell. Whether issue estoppel or cause of action estoppel is applicable, at the end of the day the court must determine whether it should exercise its discretion to bar the action by reason of res judicata or whether there are exceptional or special circumstances that should apply.

[33] I find that all of the criteria necessary for cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel have not been met. If I am wrong, there are special circumstances not to apply res judicata for to do so would cause a real injustice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not had his day in court on his claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of the accident. It may be that the issue of liability isres judicata, but the application was not argued on that basis. Rather, it is argued that the plaintiff should have brought his claim for personal injuries at the same time he brought his action in Small Claims Court. In certain circumstances that may be correct but only if the claim can be brought within the monetary limit of Small Claims Court. However, the fact remains that the plaintiff’s claim for damages for personal injuries has never been before a court and considered. To dismiss the plaintiff’s claim at this stage of the litigation would be denying the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard on that issue and unjust.

[34] The application is dismissed with costs.

Read similar articles by – British Columbia personal injury lawyer Erik Magraken.

B.C.’s enhanced driver’s licence (EDL) is a driver’s licence and a travel document that you can use to enter the U.S. at land and water border crossings. Here you’ll find everything you need to know about getting an EDL.

More information regarding security risks associated with Enhanced Drivers Licence, and how to protect yourself, coming soon.

For information regarding Enhanced Drivers Licence, please visit the following link:

http://www.icbc.com/licensing/edl.asp

Owners of the most are being offered up to $160 each by ICBC to install immobilizers to prevent theft.

Getting an immobilizer was a no-brainer for Dave Peterson, who owns a shiny, 2006 Ford F-150.

But he was a little curious about the ICBC pilot project, which is offering cash to the about 2,200 owners of non-immobilized F-Series 2000 to 2006 trucks in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley.

“Why are they giving them money?” said Peterson.

Immobilizers are hard-wired into a vehicle and shut down ignition and fuel systems. A special key or electronic code is needed to start a vehicle equipped with the device.

Transport Canada regulations that came into effect Sept. 1, 2007, require all new cars to come equipped with immobilizers.

ICBC thinks that spending the money to prevent the trucks from being stolen is cheaper than repairing them if they are ripped off.

ICBC is sending letters with all the details to the truck owners.

The F-Series trucks started rising in the ranks of most-stolen vehicles beginning in 2005 when they were in eighth place. They moved up to No. 3 in 2006, slipped a little last year to fourth spot, but this year powered past the long-time favourite Honda Civics from 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998 and 2000.

Unlike many vehicles of a similar vintage, the 2000 to 2006 Ford F-Series did not come standard with immobilizers and thieves took advantage of that flaw.

The big trucks are also handier than Hondas when it comes to hauling away stolen goods or crashing through storefronts.

Nicolas Jimenez, ICBC’s director of road safety, said the immobilizer pilot program could be expanded to other vehicles and other areas.

“It has to be something customers want, something customers take advantage of, something where the investment can be justified,” he said.

ICBC also announced yesterday it is increasing the number of Ford F-Series trucks in the bait-car program.

As you know by know, I hate ICBC, I Fuc*&% HATE ICBC.

There are many, many reasons – chief among them, though, is that spending the equivalent of a mortgage payment a year to insure our car galls the hell out of me. Thank God and safe driving premiums I’ve managed to stay accident-free. Without such, we’d pay twice that.

This week, the snake-oil salesmen have been shilling ICBC’s latest cash-grab – the $25 top up to add sanctioned drivers to a vehicle insured in your name.

So single car families – that’d be The DeMones of White Rock, B.C. – who will see Momma, Poppa and Baby Bear sharing the wheel, will now pay more to ICBC for exactly the same privilege we’ve enjoyed until now.

I understand we will be blessed with the peace of mind of third party coverage in the event one of those named on the insurance is driving at the time of at at-fault accident. Ah, such bliss…

I am all for whatever fair moves ICBC can make to ease the cost of insurance for safe drivers. Bad drivers should pay more – and often do. But that seldom filters back to lower premiums for good drivers.

ICBC, like most bloated bureaucracies propped up by government-sanctioned monopoly, just finds more ways to retain the excesses they fleece from us. Like they need to have ‘sufficient reserves’ – and better double-talk to justify additional charges, fees or fines.

Like this week, when one hack preached how the $25 additional driver fee does indeed equate to lower fees for good drivers because it means ICBC won’t have to raise rates for good drivers.

Now there’s twisted logic for you. We’ll charge you more so we don’t have to charge you more.

I say heap it all on the bad drivers.

Feb. 16 of 2007, I passed a mini van which was moving at glacial speed. Double line, and exceeded the posted limit. The ticket was just shy of $300.

Last week, I got a notice from ICBC that my heinous transgression had earned me three points for each infraction. To a total of six. Which is more than four. Which is the number ICBC allows as grace each year before tarring us as bad drivers.

So I am a bad driver. My name is Rob, and I speed. Or sped.

It cost me another $300 to clear my good name.

Passing that glacial mini van really cost me $600.

I’m not complaining one whit. I deserved it. I like to think I’m a better driver.

But did you good drivers out there get a break as a result? Did my wife, the primary driver of our only car, get a break on her premiums?

Nope and nope.

ICBC, of course, says that’s because all these fees, fines and charges are permutations concocted, devised and otherwise contorted to ensure fairness for all drivers from Yak to Agassiz to Barriere and beyond.

Can’t expect honesty. Can’t expect that snake-oil salesmen to just say ‘Hey, we need to show a 9% bump in bottom line profits for 2009, and rather than work harder or smarter, we’re just going to charge you all $25 more. Sign here…’

I want that job – better still, I want the ICBC talking head on my side when I negotiate my contract.

Brendan Lillies, 19, wanted to fix his 1992 Acura Integra after it was rear-ended — but ICBC sold the car for scrap, and despite a four-month protracted dispute, still hasn’t settled with the family.

“[A reasonable person] would go to the police and report the car stolen,” said Brendan’s dad, Charlie Lillies.

After being contacted by CTV News, ICBC apologized to the family.

“In this case we made an error,” said ICBC’s Adam Grossman. “We acknowledge it and we’re doing everything we can to make that up with the customer.”

In the accident, Brendan was hit from behind and then pushed into a car in front of him. The at-fault driver fled — and ICBC assigned fault to Brendan.

ICBC said they would pay $2,700 for the car, even though only days before Brendan had put in a new engine, rims and tires worth more than $3,000. That, combined with the value of the car itself, should total more than $6,000, said the Lillies.

That’s when Brendan’s dad Charlie decided the family would pay out the claim and just fix the car themselves.

“We asked for the vehicle back, and they said, ‘Sorry, the vehicle’s been sold. You can’t get the car back,’” said Charlie.

Even though they didn’t sign a salvage waiver — the paperwork that transfers the ownership from Brendan to ICBC — ICBC had already sold the car.

That was months ago — but ICBC kept charging Brendan for his insurance premiums. When Brendan tried to get a refund for the premiums, his dad says a clerk demanded that he sign the salvage waiver after the fact.

“It’s just a lesson,” said Charlie. “Do your homework before you make a claim — they’re not going to do it for you. They’ll take advantage of someone who’s just a young guy.”

When ICBC writes off a car they sell it to a salvage yard, who sell it for parts. The Lillies tracked down the Acura to a salvage lot in Surrey, where they found its engine had been stripped, its rims and tires were gone, and there wasn’t much left.

“I’m a bit angry about it,” said Brendan. “It’s not like I can walk across the street to my neighbour’s house, grab his keys, throw his truck on Craigslist and sell it.”

ICBC has made another offer on the car, which is about $4,000, said Grossman. If an independent arbitrator decides the car is worth more, then the company will pay more, he said.

Grossman said he couldn’t find any other example of a car being sold for scrap without authorization.

“It’s extremely rare,” he said. “We are making up with an offer that’s more than fair.”

What was happening: ” formerly written-off cars were being resold after their repair histories were altered.” So eight staff members were – let me use the euphemism to cover a variety of issues – ‘let go’.

Most normal people would agree that Fired staff, especially the ones who STEAL, should be getting a Boot in their @#$, not a Severance package. People don’t even get a Thank You card when they get fired, and these bastards are getting severance package, Are you Fuc*$& Serious?

What happened was clearly wrong, certainly a tort for the people who got cars with fraudulent records, probably criminal. Certainly due cause for dismissal. But it now appears that the action was more about PR than good sense. The whole thing was quickly hushed up – so the scandal would “go away”, preferably quickly.

If people are dismissed – or allowed to resign – to avoid other penalties they deserve no severance at all. Indeed those who profitted from this scheme should make restitution. But that would require an investigation, which might well turn up other related issues – who knows? – and all that it seems was to be avoided at all costs. Which is something you might be able to do with a closely held private company. But not with a crown coporation.

The more one knows about ICBC, the less one feels comfortable about it. I have been sitting on some material for some time now on distance based inssurance. This is an idea that Tod Littmann has been promoting for some time – and I did not really want to move onto his turf. But the main concern I have is that ICBC has not – so far as I can determine – ever even considered the idea. It certianly has given no credible reason why it should not be tried. And my question is why should this be? Why is ICBC so reluctant to being open and letting its owners – us – know what it is doing and why.

It is something of a cultural issue in crown corporations – and it is noticeable that the present government is getting increasingly ham fisted at dealing with these government owned and directed operations. BC Ferries and BC Transit are the two I am most familiar with – and neither are any longer examples to be proud of. The way BC Hydro is being chopped up and forced into a corner is even worse. And at least part of the problem is that the right wing does not think public enterprises should be successful. They must be made to fail in order to promote the ideology (there’s a word I havebeen reaching for a lot lately) that private is good public is bad.