In WorkSafeBC Review Decision R0279941, Elizabeth Emery acted for the widow of an ICBC claims examiner who had taken his life. Elizabeth was initially successful in obtaining survivor benefits for the widow and her three young children through WorkSafeBC, on the basis that the worker’s suicide was brought about by his employment. The deceased worker had been the primary source of financial support for his family.

The deceased worker’s employer (ICBC) chose to challenge WorkSafeBC’s acceptance of the widow’s claim for survivor benefits, leading to a review before the WorkSafeBC Review Division. The main issue before the Review Division was whether the deceased worker’s employment as a senior claims examiner had aggravated his pre-existing depression, which led to his death. Elizabeth was successful in defeating the employer’s appeal and maintaining survivor benefits for the widow and her children. The Review Division upheld the initial decision of the WorkSafeBC Case Manager, finding that there was evidence of an identifiable series of significant stressors arising out of the worker’s employment and that these stressors were the predominant cause of the aggravation of his pre-existing depression.

The benefits obtained for the widow and her children are worth over $1.5 million.

In Rorison v. ICBC, 2020 BCSC 1965, the Plaintiffs filed a class action seeking in excess of $900,000,000 from both ICBC and the Province of British Columbia. They alleged a scheme wherein ICBC and the Province illegally charged the costs of physician visits to accident victims which reduced the amount of rehabilitation funds available to persons injured in car accidents and caused ratepayers to pay more for their insurance. ICBC and the Province brought a preliminary application seeking an opportunity to apply to dismiss the claims prior to certification. This application was dismissed and the matter was ordered to proceed to certification.

In Alvaro v. Insure BC Insurance Services Inc., 2019 BCSC 2017, Kevin Gourlay acted for two owners of a rental property in Maple Ridge. They thought they were properly insured but when a fire happened, they were denied coverage by their insurer because the home was between tenants and the policy said they had no coverage while the home was “vacant.” The plaintiffs brought a claim against their insurance broker for failing to advise them of the potential gaps in their coverage. The Court concluded that the broker was negligent and was the sole cause of the lack of coverage.