Canary in the Coal Mine: the warning from Bc
Long before Alberta’s government began promoting its Care First no-fault auto insurance model, British Columbia was sold a nearly identical narrative. In 2021, as B.C. prepared to shift ICBC’s system to Enhanced Care, a no-fault system from which Alberta’s Care First draws much inspiration, industry voices warned that the benefits touted by government — faster claims, reduced costs, and fewer lawsuits — came with a steep trade-off: drivers would lose meaningful legal recourse and face financial hardship after serious crashes. This is the same bill of goods currently being sold to Albertans, and the BC experience should serve as a cautionary to every Albertan watching uneasily as our supposedly conservative government adopts the BC NDP’s playbook.
At the heart of the argument from critics in B.C. was the simple truth that if you’re seriously injured in a crash and not at fault, the promise of streamlined benefits doesn’t always translate to real protection. Stratford Underwriting’s Colin Brown, a long-time industry insider, explained that while no-fault might reduce litigation costs and offer immediate weekly benefits or medical coverage, it also charts a course toward capped compensation that may not reflect a victim’s true losses. In his words, victims essentially “get less and pay less,” but lose the ability to seek full compensation through the courts for severe injuries.
That “get less and pay less” trade-off has proven to be a trainwreck. In B.C., the no-fault model eliminated most causes of action against at-fault drivers, replacing them with predetermined benefit schedules and limited paths to appeal. While benefits may arrive faster for minor injuries, the Enhanced Care system leaves injured people with significant long-term medical or financial needs without adequate recourse — especially once initial benefits run out or when insurers challenge claims. Recent reporting and analysis show that accountability for negligent drivers has weakened, and dispute resolution under the system can leave victims waiting for justice they once could pursue in court. Several horror stories from injured BC drivers have been highlighted on this website previously.
Today in Alberta, proponents of Care First echo many of the same talking points that were used to justify B.C.’s overhaul: that abolishing fault-based claims will reduce costs and speed access to care. But the experience from our western neighbour has shown that those promises don’t always hold up in practice, and that reducing litigation does not guarantee fair compensation or accountability for accident victims. Instead, what we see in B.C. is a system where injured people must navigate bureaucratic benefit tables and insurer determinations, with less leverage, less bargaining power, and no ability to challenge unfair decisions in the courts.
Alberta should learn from this experience rather than repeat it. The legal safeguards that currently allow Albertans to seek full compensation through the courts — including for pain and suffering, lost income, and future care — are fundamental rights that ensure insurers and negligent parties are held accountable and that victims are made whole to the greatest extent possible.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Before Alberta finalizes its own no-fault future, we must ask whether Care First truly serves Albertans or merely replicates a model that has left many in B.C. with gaps in coverage, diminished legal rights, and long-term uncertainty. We should not be sold the same bill of goods that our neighbours were; the real-world impacts of no-fault in B.C. are a warning worth heeding. The B.C. model is the canary in the coal mine: if we don’t listen now, it will soon be too late.
Read Colin Brown’s original op-ed in The Province here: https://theprovince.com/opinion/colin-brown-icbcs-new-no-fault-model-will-leave-some-drivers-facing-financial-hardship-following-a-crash