A no contact accident can leave an injured person with almost nothing to identify the other driver. There may be no licence plate, no exchange of information and no physical impact between the vehicles. British Columbia still allows a claim against ICBC in that situation, but only if the claimant has made all reasonable efforts to identify the responsible driver.
Barr v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2026 BCSC 364, shows how that obligation works when the circumstances themselves limit what can realistically be done.
The plaintiff said an unknown vehicle forced her from the road without making contact. She suffered injuries and later pursued ICBC as nominal defendant. ICBC challenged the claim, arguing that she had not taken the steps required by section 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act to identify the driver.
The Court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the statutory requirement. Her conduct had to be assessed against the sudden nature of the event, the absence of obvious witnesses, her medical condition after the accident and the practical usefulness of the investigative steps ICBC said she should have taken. She contacted police and later canvassed the area. The Court was not persuaded that the additional steps proposed by ICBC were reasonably required in the circumstances.
The decision does not reduce the reasonable efforts requirement to a formality. Claimants still need to act when there are meaningful leads. What it rejects is hindsight that imagines an unlimited investigation after the fact. The legal question is whether the steps available to this claimant, in this accident, were reasonable and capable of producing useful information.
Liability was determined in the plaintiff's favour and damages remained for later determination. For claims professionals, Barr reinforces the need to assess an unknown driver investigation as a factual whole rather than by counting investigative tasks.