ICBC No-Fault Insurance 'Enhanced Care' System People's Survey(This survey is for non-ICBC employees or affiliates, and not for personal or ICBC lawyers or legal representatives)

1.How has the ICBC No-Fault 'Enhanced Care' system affected you overall?

(Choose the option that best reflects your opinion)

4.For those Injured in an MVA
Did you feel the need to have a lawyer to navigate the ICBC No-Fault 'Enhanced Care' system?

(Choose the option that best reflects your opinion)(Required.)

5.Have you or treatment providers ever felt that ICBC’s rules or administrative controls interfered with your recovery process?

(Choose the option that best reflects your experience or opinion)

Yes – ICBC delayed, denied, or limited treatment approvals based on internal rules rather than medical advice, negatively impacting recovery.

No – My experience with ICBC and my care providers was smooth. I received the treatment I needed without interference.

I haven’t had direct experience with this, but I believe medical professionals—not insurers—should control treatment decisions.

I’m not sure – I’d need more information about how ICBC manages treatment decisions and provider reporting.

6.Injury Classification:
Under the old system, injuries were classified into levels such as “minor” (e.g. soft tissue), “serious” (e.g. fractures, neurological trauma), and “catastrophic” (e.g. paralysis, brain injury). These categories helped determine the level of support a person received.

Do you believe having clear injury categories (minor, serious, catastrophic) better reflected the real-life impact of injuries than ICBC’s current approach under Enhanced Care?

Yes – While not perfect, we should bring back the old classification system and, because it recognized the real severity of injuries and ensured people received appropriate care based on their actual condition.

No – The current Enhanced Care model is better because it focuses on treatment and support, not labels, reduces the cost and time spent on lawsuits, shifts the focus to medical, and is more efficient.

Neither - ICBC Needs an overhaul in their injury classification system.

7.Medical Care & ICBC’s Role in Treatment Decisions

Yes – ICBC should have no authority over treatment decisions and IMEs should be abolished.

Partial reform – ICBC can request second opinions, but IME appointments should be abolished and replaced with truly neutral assessments by licensed medical providers chosen by the injured and agreed on by both parties.

Keep it as is – IMEs and ICBC oversight are necessary to prevent fraud and over-treatment, even if the process feels adversarial.

I’m not sure – I need more information on how ICBC currently handles treatment plans and IMEs.

8.Do you think injured people under ICBC’s Enhanced Care system should be allowed to hire lawyers again for disputes and claims? If yes, what do you believe is a fair way to structure legal fees?

(Choose the option that best reflects your opinion)

Yes – Lawyers should be allowed, and fees should be tiered based on the stage of resolution:
10–15% of the settlement if resolved early
15–20% if more investigation is needed
20–25% if it goes to arbitration
25-30% if it goes to trial

ICBC should cover all lawyer fees and costs for rear-end collisions.

ICBC should cover court costs only if the injured person wins the case or reaches a settlement, to prevent misuse.

Lawyers should be fully allowed and allowed to charge market rates, just like before Enhanced Care. The injured person should decide what's fair.

Lawyer fees should be lower than these percentages at all stages

The current system should stay. ICBC should provide care without the need for lawyers, even if it means some people feel undercompensated.

ICBC should cover all lawyer fees and cost for rear-end collisions and have tier rates based on stage of resolution.

I’m not sure – I’d need more information about how Enhanced Care works and how people are currently being treated.

9.Do you feel the Government of BC should

Bring back the right to sue

Reinstate Pain and Suffering

Ensure ICBC is held accountable for affecting physical and mental health

Focus on addressing the careless and dangerous drivers on our roads

Bring in other insurance companies to compete

Phase ICBC out of medical roles

Phase ICBC out of medical and insurance roles

All of the above

10.Would you support the creation of an independent, government-funded (but not government-run) system, where a rotating group of neutral lawyers mediates disputes between injured individuals and insurance companies (like ICBC or WorkSafe)? This system would replace ICBC's Fair Practices Department and Fairness Officers, which are paid for by taxpayer dollars, with impartial mediation, and include public reporting and transparency on lawyer performance.

Yes, I fully support this idea.
(I believe an independent, neutral system would create a fairer, more efficient process for both parties involved.)

Yes, but I have concerns about how it would be implemented.
(I think it’s a good idea, but I want to ensure the system works in practice and there’s proper oversight.)

No, I don’t think this would be effective.
(I believe the current system works better, or this new approach could cause more problems.)

No, I prefer the existing system with Fair Practices and Fairness Officers.
(I think ICBC’s current system is fine, and I don't see a need for change.)

I’m unsure and would need more information.
(I’m not sure if this system is the right solution. I would need more details before making a decision.)