An accident benefit dispute can move through more than one decision maker, but each stage has its own job. Delos Santos v ICBC, 2026 BCSC 659, shows the limits of trying to use judicial review as a second opportunity to present a benefits case.
The claimant sought income replacement benefits under British Columbia's automobile insurance scheme. The Civil Resolution Tribunal rejected the claim after considering whether the work relied on by the claimant qualified under the statutory scheme and whether the accident injuries prevented her from working.
She then asked the Supreme Court to overturn the tribunal result. Part of the challenge involved explanations and material that had not been put before the tribunal in the same way.
The Court dismissed the petition. The question on judicial review was not whether the judge would have decided benefit entitlement differently on a fresh record. It was whether the tribunal decision met the very deferential standard that applied to this statutory review. The Court found that it did.
That distinction matters for both claimants and insurers. Evidence about employment, earnings and functional incapacity needs to be assembled at the stage where benefit entitlement is actually being decided. Judicial review is not designed to cure every evidentiary omission by allowing the case to be rebuilt after the tribunal has ruled.
ICBC was awarded fixed costs of $750. The judgment does not create a new test for income replacement benefits. Its practical significance is procedural. Parties need to treat the tribunal hearing as the place to make the complete benefits record, because the court's later role may be limited to asking whether the tribunal acted within the legal boundaries of its decision making authority.