A BC tribunal member has departed from her own prior ruling, declining jurisdiction over an accident benefits claim against Canadian insurer Co-Operators.
In McNair v. Co-Operators General Insurance Company, 2026 BCCRT 443, issued March 17, 2026, Tribunal Member Amanda Binnie refused to hear a dispute brought by Nikolas McNair, an Alberta resident who was injured in a head-on collision in British Columbia on October 22, 2022. McNair filed his claim in April 2025 after Co-Operators terminated his accident benefits.
At the time of the crash, McNair was 27 and working as a concrete finisher. His vehicle was struck head-on at highway speeds and pushed into a ditch. The parties agreed the accident was serious. Co-Operators, which insured McNair under an Alberta policy, initially paid out $131,550.94 in income replacement and $56,089.70 in healthcare and rehabilitation benefits. But in March 2025, after independent medical examinations, the insurer cut off those payments. McNair wanted them reinstated.
The dispute, however, never reached the merits. The threshold question - whether the CRT even had authority to hear the case - became the entire decision.
Both sides agreed that Co-Operators was providing benefits McNair would be entitled to under BC's Insurance (Vehicle) Act, through a Power of Attorney and Undertaking. But Co-Operators argued the relationship was contractual, not statutory, and therefore fell outside the CRT's reach.
Binnie agreed. In doing so, she acknowledged she was departing from her own earlier decision in Richert v. Intact Insurance Company, 2024 BCCRT 1049, where she had ruled the CRT did have jurisdiction over these types of disputes. What changed was a BC Supreme Court ruling - Evancio v. Geico General Insurance Company, 2025 BCSC 1915 - which found that a PAU does not incorporate the CRT's dispute resolution process into the insurer-policyholder relationship. The court held that a PAU does not simply substitute an extra-provincial insurer into ICBC's place.
That ruling is binding on the CRT. As Binnie noted, previous CRT decisions, including her own, are not binding - but BC Supreme Court decisions are.
For the insurance industry, the takeaway is practical. Accident benefits disputes involving out-of-province insurers operating under PAUs can no longer be resolved at the CRT. They will instead land in BC Supreme Court - a more formal, more expensive forum for everyone involved.
The decision also highlights a gap in how Canada's interprovincial insurance system handles disputes. The PAU framework ensures out-of-province drivers get minimum coverage when accidents happen in BC. But when disagreements over that coverage arise, the path to resolution just got longer.
Binnie directed CRT staff to refund both parties' tribunal fees, noting it was reasonable for McNair to have filed when he did - before Evancio was decided.
