Hit-and-run claimants don't need to play detective when police have already tried and failed, BC's Court of Appeal has ruled.
In a decision handed down on March 3, 2026, the court overturned a trial ruling that had barred three claimants from recovering damages through ICBC as nominal defendant after a collision involving a stolen vehicle. The case, Fearon v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2026 BCCA 81, raises a pointed question for the industry: when does relying on a thorough police investigation satisfy a claimant's statutory duty to identify an unknown driver?
The incident took place on February 3, 2019, at about 4am in a residential area of Burnaby. A stolen pickup truck ran a stop sign and collided at high speed with the vehicle carrying Larissa Kady-Ann Fearon, Duwayne Doras Fearon, and Shawayne Cecil Powell. The driver fled on foot - described only as a person in dark clothing and a hoodie — and disappeared.
The RCMP treated the matter as a serious criminal case. The lead investigator, Constable Gagné, deployed police dogs to track the fugitive, canvassed the area for video cameras, and arranged for a forensic examination of the truck for DNA and fingerprints. Every avenue came up empty. No witness could describe the person. The file was closed seven days later.
The claimants reported the accident to ICBC and sued under section 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, which allows victims to pursue ICBC as nominal defendant when an at-fault driver cannot be identified. The catch is subsection 24(5), which requires the court to be satisfied that "all reasonable efforts have been made by the parties to ascertain the identity of the unknown owner and driver" and that the identity "is not ascertainable."
The trial judge ruled against the claimants, finding they had done nothing on their own for over a year. They did not post signs or place advertisements seeking witnesses until March 2020 — steps the judge called "minimally burdensome." The trial decision is indexed as Fearon v. Doe, 2024 BCSC 2291.
The Court of Appeal unanimously disagreed. Justice Grauer, writing for the panel, held the trial judge committed an error of law by evaluating the claimants' inaction without weighing it against the police investigation, "creating artificial constraints on what is meant to be a holistic assessment." The court noted that no previous case cited or brought to its attention under the provision had involved a stolen vehicle driven by a completely unknown person - a scenario where identifying the vehicle does not lead to the driver.
The court also rejected the trial judge's view that posting signs might have prompted tips from the fugitive's family or associates, calling that reasoning "pure speculation." The law, the court confirmed, does not require steps that are "highly unlikely" to produce results. It was reasonable, the court held, for the claimants to rely on police rather than undertaking what would have amounted to a criminal investigation of their own.
The appeal was allowed, and the case was sent back for assessment of damages.
Worth noting: the trial judge had observed - though the point was not at issue on appeal - that ICBC's silence on claimants' statutory obligations "makes s. 24(5) seem and serve as a trap for the unwary."
