ICBC was wrong to assign 100 per cent of the blame to a driver who was rear-ended after another driver brake-checked her on the Port Mann Bridge, the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has ruled.

The tribunal found the insurer was unreasonable in assigning the full blame to the driver (the applicant) who was hit from behind, and has ordered it to change its assessment to reflect that driver’s share should be 10 per cent.

According to the CRT’s decision, issued last week, dashcam footage shows one driver passing a white van on Highway 1 before moving back into the lane ahead of it. The driver of the van responded by flashing their high beams.

The applicant told the tribunal the van driver threw garbage at her vehicle while it was driving alongside her. The driver of the van said they “don’t recall” throwing any garbage, which tribunal member Christopher Rivers calls “disengenuous.”

According to the decision, the confrontation continued when the applicant tried to change lanes, moving into a small gap behind the van and ahead of a third vehicle.

The tribunal says the van driver then hit the brakes, first gently and then sharply, despite having adequate space and no clear reason to stop.

The applicant says she braked suddenly to avoid hitting the van. However, according to the decision, the driver of the third vehicle could not stop in time and rear ended her.

After reviewing the dashcam footage, the tribunal says, it appears it is likely the van had deliberately brake-checked the applicant out of anger.

In his decision, Rivers said he also considered the van driver’s earlier driving, including flashing high beams and pulling alongside the applicant’s vehicle. Given the context, he said, it appears the van driver’s actions were, “on a balance of probabilities, motivated by malice or anger, and not safety.”

“I find [the van driver’s] driving constituted blameworthy conduct, falling below the standard of a reasonable driver in the circumstances,” he said.

“This dangerous, aggressive, and unnecessary braking was an immediate cause of the accident that followed. I find [the van driver] shares responsibility for what happened.”

The applicant challenged ICBC’s conclusion that she was entirely responsible for the crash, according to the CRT, arguing that the insurer had failed to properly consider the evidence or the van driver’s actions.

The tribunal says that while ICBC carried out a proper investigation, its decision to assign all the blame to the applicant was unreasonable.

However, the decision said, the applicant had taken a risk by changing lanes into the small gap behind the van.

“She chose to do so behind a driver whose previous actions were unsafe and unpredictable,” Rivers wrote.

“In doing so, she put not only herself at risk, but also [the driver of the third vehicle], who followed behind.”

The CRT says the van driver’s braking was the main cause of the crash, but the applicant shares some responsibility.

“I order ICBC to amend its internal responsibility assessment to reflect that [the applicant] is 10 per cent responsible,” rather than 100 per cent, as originally assessed.