This week, we discuss a B.C. Court of Appeal decision clarifying what victims must do to identify a hit-and-run driver before claiming compensation from ICBC. We also break down a judicial review involving a roadside breath test refusal and the Immediate Roadside Prohibition system.
The Court of Appeal recently considered whether a crash victim must personally investigate a hit-and-run driver in order to recover damages through ICBC. In this case, police conducted a full investigation including canine tracking, forensic examination, and video canvassing, but still could not identify the driver. The lower court concluded the victim should have taken additional steps, such as posting signs or seeking witnesses. The Court of Appeal rejected that reasoning, finding it unreasonable to expect victims to conduct their own criminal investigation when police efforts have already failed.
The episode also examines a judicial review involving a driver who allegedly refused to provide a breath sample during a roadside stop. The case highlights how adjudicators assess credibility, how roadside statements like “a while ago” about drinking can be interpreted, and why challenging Immediate Roadside Prohibitions remains extremely difficult.
For the Ridiculous Driver of the Week, we look at a viral pursuit where a police cruiser somehow ends up stuck on the back of a trailer before another officer attempts a PIT maneuver, sending the vehicle tumbling off.
Stream Episode 443 for the full discussion.
