BROADCASTS.com

b'

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan: The ICBC no-fault system proposed by the NDP would save money by not providing compensation for the loss of future earning capacity.

Currently, with our fault-based system, if someone is seriously injured by a careless driver, they would be entitled to be put back into the position they would have been in had they not been injured. This could include a lump sum payment based on the current value of their lost future earning capacity.\\xa0

The question for a judge is how much more would they have earned; had they not been injured.

Under the proposed ICBC no-fault system, whether someone is responsible for an accident or not, they would only be entitled to monthly payments based on their income at the time of the accident. This could be particularly unfair to young people who have just started working. A young person, with their first job following graduation, if permanently disabled, would only ever receive monthly payments based on how much they were making when they were disabled.\\xa0

By moving to monthly payments for disabled people, rather than paying a lump sum, ICBC will be able to spread out their obligations for many years.

This helps explain how the government is planning to justify pre-election rebate cheques from an insurance company described as a financial dumpster fire.

By creating long term, underfunded, liabilities to make monthly payments, ICBC management would also help entrench a monopoly no-fault system because privatization would require these liabilities to be dealt with.\\xa0

Also discussed on the show is the quia timet injunction obtained by Uber to stop the City of Surrey from issuing tickets to Uber driver for not having Surrey business licences, which Surrey would not issue.

A quia timet injunction is a special kind of injunction that prohibits future, rather than current, conduct. This kind of injunction may of some use to prohibit the pre-planned obstruction of buildings, roads, ferries, and other infrastructure by natural gas pipeline protestors.\\xa0

Finally, a new trial is ordered in a case where a judge found that a Saanich police officer assaulted a man he pulled over. The trial judge found that the police officer seriously injured the man, however, the municipality of Saanich didn\\u2019t have to pay because they hadn\\u2019t been provided written notice within 2 months of the incident. The police officer also avoided having to pay for the man\\u2019s injuries because the Police Act exempts officers form personal liability unless they engage in \\u201cdishonesty, gross negligence or malicious or wilful misconduct\\u201d.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because the trial judge had not considered whether the officer who assaulted the man had engaged in \\u201cmalicious or wilful misconduct\\u201d which is different from \\u201cgross negligence\\u201d.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.