Fearon v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2026 BCCA 81
Reading time: 4 minutes (approx.)
By: Sarah Richard
This case arises from a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident in British Columbia on February 3, 2019. An unidentified driver stole a pickup truck and slammed into the vehicle driven by the appellants. The unidentified driver then disappeared on foot from the scene of the accident.
As the owner of the truck could not be held responsible and the driver was unknown, the appellants sued the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). Their claim was dismissed at trial because the trial judge found that they had not made “all reasonable efforts” to determine the unknown driver’s identity as stated in Section 24(5) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, RSBC 1996, c 213 (the Act). The appellants did not investigate the situation until more than a year later when they started asking for witnesses. The issue upon appeal was whether the trial judge erred in coming to this conclusion.
The Appeal Court held that determining whether a claimant has made “all reasonable efforts” to identify an unknown driver under s. 24(5) depends entirely on the specific circumstances of the case. The trial judge erred by assessing the appellants’ actions in isolation, rather than conducting the required holistic analysis of all surrounding circumstances, including the extent of the police investigation.
The Court found that the trial judge improperly relied on cases involving very different factual situations and artificially separated the analysis between steps taken at the accident scene and steps taken afterward. This approach led the trial judge to conclude that the appellants had failed to meet their burden because they did not take additional steps (such as posting signs or advertisements) until a year later.
However, the Court emphasized that no specific investigative steps are universally required, and what constitutes reasonable efforts is a question of fact in each case. Here, the police had already conducted a substantial investigation, such as using police dogs, searching for surveillance footage, examining the stolen vehicle, and interviewing witnesses, yet were unable to identify the fleeing driver.
Given the circumstances (a stolen vehicle, a fleeing suspect at 4 a.m. in the dark, and no witnesses able to identify the driver), the Court found that additional steps by the appellants would likely have been futile. The law does not require claimants to take measures that are highly unlikely to produce results, nor to conduct their own investigation where the police are already reasonably investigating a serious crime.
As a result, the Court concluded that the appellants had made all reasonable efforts to identify the unknown driver, and the trial judge committed an error of law. The appeal was allowed, the dismissal of the claim against ICBC was set aside, and the matter was returned to the trial court for assessment of damages.
