Judge says allowing amendment means ceding jurisdiction to Civil Resolution Tribunal
The British Columbia Supreme Court has refused the BC public safety minister and solicitor general’s request to amend a response to a civil claim for injuries from a collision between the vehicles driven by the plaintiff and an RCMP member.
The case was Strutt v British Columbia (Public Safety and Solicitor General), 2026 BCSC 2140. On May 15, 2019, a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police operated a vehicle that collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle at the intersection of 27th Street and Anderson Way, Vernon, BC.
On May 4, 2020, the plaintiff initiated a civil claim alleging:
- injuries to his neck and back
- a right shoulder injury requiring surgery
- sleep disturbance and chronic pain
- psychological disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression
Amendment application to add defence
Through a notice of application filed last Mar. 10, the defendant minister sought to amend the response to plead that the claim fell within the minor injury category under s. 101(1) of BC’s Insurance (Vehicle) Act, 1996 (IVA), and Parts 1 and 2 of the Minor Injury Regulation, BC Reg 234/2018, enacted under the IVA.
The minister alleged that the plaintiff’s claim was within the amount provided by s. 133(1)(c) of BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, 2012 (CRTA), and s. 7 of the Accident Claims Regulation, BC Reg 233/2018, enacted under the CRTA.
Regarding the explanation for the delay in seeking an amendment, current counsel asserted that:
- She had not considered that defence from the time of her appointment as counsel in May 2024 until fall 2025, since she was a new call who had not previously handled motor vehicle files
- She turned her mind to the minor injury defence’s applicability only after the adjournment of the October 2025 trial
Opposing the proposed amendment, the plaintiff argued that it plainly and obviously disclosed no reasonable defence, given his injuries, the delay’s length and reasons, and the prejudice to him.
Supreme Court of British Columbia’s order
The Supreme Court of British Columbia denied the minister’s application to amend the response to the civil claim.
In the circumstances, the court ruled that allowing the amendment and ceding jurisdiction to the Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia (CRT) would not align with the interests of justice and fairness.
The court found the plaintiff entitled to his costs in the cause.
Length and explanation of the delay
First, the BC Supreme Court described the delay of nearly six years in asking for an amendment as exceptionally long.
Next, the court held that the minister failed to explain the delay sufficiently, which it should have done. The court pointed out that the minister, as a “sophisticated” party, should know the relevant legislation and the applicability of a minor injury defence.
The court noted that the minister had medical information about the injuries by Mar. 22, 2022, when the plaintiff’s list of documents included a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.
The court also saw no explanation for why the two former defence counsel did not apply to amend the response to add the minor injury defence.
Prospects of success
The BC Supreme Court found the suggested amendment and the proposed defence bound to fail.
Based on the evidence, including the MRI, the court determined that the plaintiff had a complete tear of his supraspinatus muscle, which did not meet the definition of a “strain” under the Minor Injury Regulation.
Prejudice to the minister
The BC Supreme Court saw little prejudice to the minister. According to the court, if it denied the amendment, the minister could still allege that the extent of injuries was minor and that the quantum of damages should be minimal.
Prejudice to the injured plaintiff
The BC Supreme Court concluded that the delay resulted in extensive prejudice to the plaintiff, which costs could not compensate and which outweighed any possible prejudice to the minister.
The court stressed that a delay in the recovery of money amounted to prejudice, given that the plaintiff might need to wait until 2029 to obtain any recovery.
The court explained that the time the plaintiff has spent waiting for his day in court affected his ability to work, stressed him out, and caused financial strain.
The court acknowledged the previous delay in this matter due to inadequate judicial resources. According to the court, allowing the amendment would lead to a stay of the proceeding to allow the CRT to decide whether the plaintiff had a minor injury.
The court also recognized the risk of memories fading over time.
More BC Supreme Court cases on motor vehicle accidents
For an injured plaintiff who had been involved in motor vehicle accidents in 2001, 2004, 2006, 2012, 2015, and 2019, the BC Supreme Court issued a Sept. 22 ruling awarding her total damages of $18,150 for the 2012 and 2015 accidents.
In a case arising from a motor vehicle accident in Richmond, the BC Supreme Court made a Sept. 16 decision awarding total damages of $1,023,400.33 after accounting for the injured plaintiff’s lack of mitigation.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury news on the main page!
