Executive summary: key legal and evidentiary issues

• Christopher Yates, a self-represented Métis petitioner, sought judicial review of preliminary decisions by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) in his insurance benefits dispute with ICBC.

• ICBC suspended and cancelled Mr. Yates' Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) after he refused to attend an independent medical examination (IME) and failed to provide authorizations for the release of medical information, citing mobility issues, childcare concerns, and alleged bad faith adjudication.

• The petitioner alleged CRT bias, claiming procedural errors including granting ICBC extensions to file its materials after the deadline had passed and failing to ensure that complete medical documentation was before the tribunal member deciding his case.

• Application of the RJR-MacDonald tri-partite test for interlocutory injunction revealed the petition was likely to be dismissed on prematurity grounds since the CRT had not yet issued a final decision on the underlying dispute.

• Prohibition against adverse inferences was found entirely premature, while mandamus compelling reinstatement of interim IRB was found to have no application because the CRT had already exercised its discretion on the request.

• Indigenous rights arguments under DRIPA and UNDRIP, along with allegations of Crown honour breaches, were raised but did not meet the high threshold for exceptional circumstances warranting early court intervention in ongoing administrative processes.

Background of the dispute

Christopher Yates is a Métis person who lives with his family on a farm in Vallican, near Winlaw, British Columbia. He participates in traditional hunting, trapping, tanning, and farming activities through which he provides for his family, as well as others, including community elders. He is a leader in his Indigenous community and teaches children about traditional practices. On October 21, 2022, Mr. Yates and his family were involved in a motor vehicle accident. He subsequently applied for and received enhanced accident benefits from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). Notably, ICBC recognized Mr. Yates' cultural and farming practices as being equivalent to employment activities and determined he was entitled to Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) on that basis.

The IME dispute and cancellation of benefits

At about the same time ICBC determined Mr. Yates was entitled to IRB, it also raised with him its intention to require an in-person independent medical examination (IME) with a neurosurgeon. As explained in ICBC's August 9, 2023 email, ICBC stated it wanted a full picture of his injuries, functional limitations, and recommended treatments. It also referred to a pre-existing condition referenced in Mr. Yates' clinical records and the need to understand the cause of his disability. ICBC offered to cover all costs of travel and accommodation for both Mr. Yates and another individual of his choosing. In an August 24, 2023 email, ICBC provided further details, including the scheduled date of the IME, being October 4, 2023. Mr. Yates objected to the IME, raising concerns about travelling given his mobility problems at the time and the need to ensure someone would be available to look after his five children. He indicated he had already provided sufficient medical evidence to establish his entitlement to benefits. He further alleged that ICBC was engaging in bad faith adjudication and breaches of both the Constitution and UNDRIP. On September 22, 2023, ICBC wrote Mr. Yates regarding the IME and related authorizations for the release of medical information, warning that if it did not receive the authorizations or if he did not attend the IME, his benefits may be suspended. Mr. Yates did not attend the October 4, 2023 IME. On November 20, 2023, ICBC wrote Mr. Yates, informing him his benefits were suspended immediately and would be cancelled in 14 days. Mr. Yates' benefits were indeed cancelled as of on or about December 4, 2023.

Earlier court proceedings and the CRT process

On January 8, 2024, Mr. Yates filed a notice of civil claim (NOCC) in the BC Supreme Court alleging, among other things, bad faith adjudication and seeking a declaration that ICBC and the provincial government had breached his constitutional rights as an Indigenous person. ICBC filed an application to dismiss or stay the NOCC. In reasons released December 20, 2024, Justice Ball dismissed the part of the NOCC making claims about Mr. Yates' entitlement to benefits, finding it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CRT. The part of the NOCC making claims under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 remained. Breach of privacy, bad faith adjudication, and a claim under s. 7 of the Charter were stayed, pending Mr. Yates making appropriate amendments. It would appear the underlying dispute essentially lay in limbo between the hearing in April 2024 and Justice Ball's decision in December 2024. On January 14, 2025, Mr. Yates applied for dispute resolution with the CRT. The matter proceeded through an initial facilitation phase, and when the parties did not settle, it passed to the Tribunal Decision Plan (TDP) phase on July 21, 2025. Mr. Yates uploaded his arguments and evidence on August 21, 2025 as requested. ICBC was initially given until September 9, 2025 to upload its materials, which the CRT says was a mistake given the short timeframe. On September 10, 2025, ICBC requested and obtained an extension to October 13, 2025. ICBC did not upload its materials by that date, which was a statutory holiday, meaning the deadline was actually October 14, 2025. On October 14, 2025, instead of uploading its evidence and arguments, ICBC asked the CRT for orders requiring Mr. Yates to produce documents and to confirm his attendance at an IME that ICBC had scheduled outside of the CRT's process for requiring IMEs, or in the alternative, for an order compelling Mr. Yates to attend that IME. ICBC also sought an order that the dispute be paused pending the delivery of the IME report. Mr. Yates objected to attending the IME.

The CRT's preliminary decisions

The CRT paused the underlying dispute pending a decision on ICBC's application. On November 19, 2025, Vice Chair Gardner rendered the CRT's decision on ICBC's application (PD#1). She held that even if the CRTA, s. 61, gives the CRT the authority to require Mr. Yates to attend an IME sought by ICBC under the Enhanced Accident Benefits Regulation (EABR), s. 60, she declined to do so. She stated that it is the applicant's burden to prove his entitlement to accident benefits. However, she warned that if Mr. Yates declines to attend the IME, he runs the risk that the tribunal member will make an adverse inference against him, or a finding that the applicant has otherwise not proved his claims. The Vice Chair also ordered Mr. Yates to confirm his attendance at the IME by a set date, to produce the medical documentation sought by ICBC, and to execute authorizations for medical providers to provide certain other medical documents. Mr. Yates took no issue before the court with any aspect of PD#1 beyond the adverse inference issue. Mr. Yates did not attend the ICBC IME. On November 20, 2025, Mr. Yates requested an IME within the CRT process, submitting that one was necessary because the evidence raised complex issues of causation, functional limitation, and the permanence of his injuries. ICBC agreed an IME was required but submitted that an in-person IME was appropriate. On January 16, 2026, tribunal member Binnie provided her decision on Mr. Yates' application for an IME (PD#2). She agreed that an IME was necessary, but not necessarily an in-person IME. She ordered that the independent health professional (IHP) review Mr. Yates' medical records, and if they determine that an in-person IME is necessary, and the parties are unable to agree, they may request further directions from the CRT. The tribunal member seized herself of the dispute. On December 6, 2025, Mr. Yates had sent an email requesting the Vice Chair make several corrections to PD#1. In a response forwarded to Mr. Yates on December 16, 2025, the Vice Chair was not satisfied that she misstated or misinterpreted any evidence such that it would constitute an inadvertent error as required under the CRTA, s. 64(b), to amend a decision. She stated for clarity that she did not make any findings about medical causation or credibility, and that in any event her decision would not be binding on the tribunal member assigned to make the final decision.

Requests for interim benefits and procedural objections

On February 6, 2026, Mr. Yates emailed the CRT to request the interim reinstatement of his benefits. On February 10, 2026, the CRT forwarded the tribunal member's response. She found that both parties were responsible for some of the delay to date, and that she did not have the necessary evidence to make a decision about the interim reinstatement of Mr. Yates' benefits. She therefore declined Mr. Yates' request "at this time." On February 26, 2026, Mr. Yates emailed the CRT to formally record a procedural objection regarding the IME terms of reference, asserting that the CRT had intentionally excluded key medical evidence, including Dr. Heran's 2024 in-person report. He demanded a response by 2:00 p.m. that same day to avoid an interim stay of proceedings in the BC Supreme Court. The CRT manager responded that evening, saying he would respond by end of day Monday. On March 2, 2026, the CRT manager responded to Mr. Yates' February 26 email, explaining he had discovered that four documents Mr. Yates had submitted — Dr. Heran's report, the ICBC letter dated August 18, 2023, the ICBC letter dated August 25, 2023, and an October 2023 document from Pauly Physiotherapy — were not before the tribunal member when she made PD#2, due to an error by CRT staff. The tribunal member confirmed that they did not change her decision regarding Mr. Yates' IME request. She directed that Dr. Heran's letter and the Pauly Physiotherapy document be added to the Terms of Reference for the IME, and held that the two ICBC letters were not medically relevant and would not be provided to the IHP.

Mr. Yates' petition for judicial review

On February 27, 2026, Mr. Yates filed a petition for judicial review seeking, among other relief, an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the CRT's preliminary decision and all post-September 11, 2025 procedural interventions; an order in the nature of prohibition preventing the CRT from drawing an adverse inference; an order in the nature of mandamus compelling the immediate reinstatement of IRB; an interim stay of all CRT proceedings; a declaration that the CRT breached the honour of the Crown and its statutory duties under DRIPA and UNDRIP; and costs. On March 2, 2026, Justice Lyster granted Mr. Yates' ex parte application for an interim stay of proceedings. The applications were heard on March 24 and 25, 2026.

The court's analysis on the stay

Applying the tri-partite test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court found on the first branch — serious issue to be tried — that the petition was likely to be dismissed on the basis of prematurity, as the CRT had not issued a final decision in the matter and had issued only two preliminary decisions. The Court held that the CRT should be permitted to get on with its work and to complete its work. Neither the allegation of bias nor Mr. Yates' allegations that his rights as an Indigenous person had been breached brought the case into the exceptional circumstances category that would justify the court intervening in the CRT's processes before they had been allowed to run their course. On the second branch — irreparable harm — the Court agreed with ICBC that Mr. Yates could not show irreparable harm because his claim was for the reinstatement of IRB, a monetary remedy, and any wrong done to him by ICBC was capable of being remedied in damages ordered by the CRT. On the third branch — balance of convenience — the Court noted the CRT has a statutory mandate to render decisions in matters within its jurisdiction in a manner that is accessible, speedy, economical, informal, and flexible, and that there is a public interest in allowing it to exercise its jurisdiction free from unwarranted interference. The Court also observed that the status quo was that Mr. Yates was not receiving benefits, and that ordering the stay to continue in place would not change that fact. Permitting the CRT proceedings to continue allowed the possibility of the CRT deciding in Mr. Yates' favour and benefits being reinstated.

Prohibition and mandamus denied

The Court declined to issue a prohibition order against adverse inferences. The Vice Chair's statement in PD#1 was, in the Court's view, a proper exercise of her discretion to ensure that Mr. Yates, a self-represented person, was aware of the potential consequences of his decision not to attend the IME. The Court agreed with the Vice Chair that it is legally possible that an adverse inference could be drawn. It was impossible to know at that stage whether the tribunal member would ultimately do so, and it was entirely premature for the court to entertain making an order about this hypothetical possibility. On mandamus, the Court found it had no application to the case at bar. The CRT had not refused to make a decision regarding interim IRB — the tribunal member had considered Mr. Yates' request and declined to grant it at that time on the basis that the evidence before her did not substantiate doing so. The Court further noted that the decision whether to grant interim benefits is a discretionary one, and relying on Apotex, mandamus is not available where the decision-maker has exercised its discretion unless the exercise was unfair, oppressive, a flagrant impropriety, or in bad faith. There was nothing to suggest the tribunal member's decision was tainted in that manner. The tribunal member's decision was also clearly not a final one, as she said she would not make such an order "at this time," suggesting that a further application to the CRT could be made on a better evidentiary record.

Ruling and outcome

Justice Lyster dissolved the interim stay that had been granted on March 2, 2026, dismissed Mr. Yates' application for an order in the nature of prohibition, and dismissed his application for an order in the nature of mandamus, thereby allowing the CRT proceedings to continue so that the CRT could fulfill its statutory mandate without further delay. ICBC, having been entirely successful in the applications, was granted its costs against Mr. Yates. The Court acknowledged that Mr. Yates has a modest income and is representing himself, but found ICBC was presumptively entitled to its costs. No costs were ordered for or against the CRT. The exact quantum of costs payable by Mr. Yates to ICBC was not specified in the decision.