In a recent decision from the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, a driver has failed to overturn a determination by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) that held her fully responsible for a collision with an ambulance1. The case, Wall v. ICBC, centered on a daytime accident in Kelowna where a routine left turn resulted in a significant dispute over right-of-way, the duties of emergency vehicle operators, and the reasonableness of an insurer’s investigation process. Despite the applicant’s arguments that the insurer’s second review of the file was flawed and inconsistent, the tribunal ultimately found that the physical evidence and the rules of the road supported the conclusion that she had failed to yield to an immediate hazard.
The incident occurred on April 22, 2023, at the intersection of Highway 97 and Banks Road in Kelowna. Samantha Wall was driving north on the highway and entered the left turn lane, intending to turn onto Banks Road. As she approached the intersection, the traffic signal transitioned to yellow. Ms. Wall reported to investigators that she waited for oncoming traffic to slow down and, believing it was safe to proceed, began her turn into the intersection. At that same moment, an ambulance driven by an individual identified as PJ was traveling south in the left lane of Highway 97. Although the ambulance was transporting a patient, it was not operating its emergency sirens or flashing lights at the time of the collision.
The accounts of the two drivers diverged regarding the final moments before impact. Ms. Wall contended that the light had been yellow for some time and that other vehicles had already begun to slow down. She claimed the ambulance did not slow down as it approached the yellow light and instead continued into the intersection, striking her vehicle. Conversely, PJ told ICBC that Ms. Wall was not stopped at the intersection but was still approaching the turn when she suddenly moved into the ambulance’s path. PJ explained that they could not safely stop at the yellow light because a paramedic was standing in the back of the ambulance attending to a patient. Due to the risk of injury to the unsecured passenger and the patient, PJ elected to proceed through the yellow light.
Initially, ICBC’s investigation led to a determination that the ambulance driver was 100 percent responsible for the accident for failing to stop at the intersection. This preliminary finding relied heavily on a statement from an independent witness who had been driving south next to the ambulance. That witness originally stated that they had slowed down for a yellow light that was turning red and that the ambulance, which was slightly behind them, continued through the intersection after the light had already changed to red. However, the ambulance driver disputed this finding, prompting ICBC to conduct a second review of the file.
During the second review, ICBC investigators re-interviewed the independent witness to clarify the timing of the light change. In this second conversation, which took place several months after the accident, the witness admitted they were no longer sure if the light was actually red when the ambulance entered the intersection. Furthermore, ICBC analyzed photographs of the vehicle damage. The photos showed significant damage to the driver’s side door and cab of the ambulance, while Ms. Wall’s vehicle sustained heavy front-end damage. ICBC concluded that this damage pattern was more consistent with Ms. Wall’s vehicle striking the side of the ambulance rather than the ambulance striking her. Consequently, ICBC reversed its initial decision and found Ms. Wall 100 percent at fault.
Ms. Wall challenged this revised determination at the Civil Resolution Tribunal, arguing that ICBC’s investigation was both improper and unreasonable. She alleged that the insurer had pressured the witness into changing their story and had failed to obtain critical evidence, such as “black box” data from the ambulance or CCTV footage from the intersection. She also pointed out that the ambulance driver had allegedly admitted at the scene that they should have stopped. Under British Columbia law, to succeed in such a claim, an applicant must prove both that the insurer’s process was unreasonable and that the actual assessment of fault was incorrect.
Tribunal member Mark Henderson examined the conduct of the investigation first. He noted that while ICBC does not need to investigate with the skill of a forensic detective, it must show reasonable diligence and objectivity. The tribunal found that ICBC’s reliance on the witness’s second statement, given months later, was somewhat unreasonable because the insurer did not explain why it preferred the later, less certain memory over the immediate statement provided days after the accident. Additionally, the tribunal noted that because the ambulance was not using emergency lights or sirens, it did not have special privileges to bypass traffic signals and was required to follow the same rules as any other vehicle. PJ’s admission that they could not stop safely suggested they might have been traveling too fast for the conditions inside the vehicle.
Despite these criticisms of ICBC’s investigative process, the tribunal turned its attention to the second part of the legal test: whether Ms. Wall was actually less responsible than the 100 percent assessment. Under the Motor Vehicle Act, a driver intending to turn left has a heavy burden to yield the right-of-way to any oncoming traffic that is in the intersection or so close as to constitute an “immediate hazard.” The law designates the oncoming vehicle as the “dominant” driver and the left-turning vehicle as the “servient” driver.
The physical evidence played a decisive role in the tribunal’s analysis. Because the front of Ms. Wall’s car hit the side of the ambulance, it was clear that the ambulance was already entering or within the intersection when the turn began. The tribunal determined that the ambulance clearly constituted an immediate hazard. Even if the light was yellow, Ms. Wall had an obligation to ensure that the oncoming vehicle was actually stopping before she crossed its path. By her own admission, she saw the ambulance and noticed it was not slowing down, yet she proceeded with the turn regardless.
The tribunal also addressed the concept of contributory negligence. While a through driver must still exercise care to avoid a collision, there was no evidence provided to show exactly how fast the ambulance was going or that PJ had a clear opportunity to avoid Ms. Wall once she began her turn. The tribunal noted that the identifying of a “dominant” driver determines who has the right-of-way, and in this case, the ambulance held that right-of-way as it approached the intersection on a yellow light that it could not safely stop for.
In the final analysis, the tribunal concluded that even if ICBC’s second review had some procedural shortcomings, the ultimate conclusion of 100 percent fault was supported by the law and the facts. Ms. Wall’s failure to yield to an oncoming vehicle that was clearly visible and not slowing down was the primary cause of the accident. The tribunal found that she could have avoided the collision entirely by simply waiting for the ambulance to clear the intersection.
As a result of these findings, the tribunal dismissed Ms. Wall’s claims for a change in the fault determination. Because she was unsuccessful in her application, she was also denied reimbursement for her tribunal fees and the cost of a doctor’s note she had submitted as evidence. Furthermore, the tribunal ordered Ms. Wall to pay 25 dollars to ICBC to reimburse the insurer for its own tribunal fees. The decision serves as a reminder of the strict obligations placed on left-turning drivers in British Columbia and the high bar required to prove that an insurer’s internal fault review process was legally improper.
Read more BC legal news here.
