Fearon v Doe
Larrissa Kady-Ann Fearon
Law Firm / Organization
Assist Legal
Lawyer(s)

David S. Klein

Shawayne Cecil Powell
Law Firm / Organization
Slater Vecchio LLP
Duwayne Doras Fearon
Law Firm / Organization
Slater Vecchio LLP
John Doe and/or Jane Doe
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
Law Firm / Organization
Eyford Partners LLP
Joshua David Cayer
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
John Doe
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Larrissa Fearon
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Cordwell Fearon
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented

Overview:
This case involved a February 2019 hit-and-run collision in Burnaby, British Columbia. Plaintiffs Larrissa Kady-Ann Fearon, Shawayne Cecil Powell, and Duwayne Doras Fearon sought damages from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, claiming injuries caused by an unidentified driver.

Key Legal Issues:
The central issue was whether the plaintiffs fulfilled their statutory duty under Section 24(5) of the Act to take "all reasonable efforts" to identify the unknown driver. ICBC argued that the plaintiffs’ failure to act promptly disqualified their claim.

Court’s Findings:
Justice Crerar dismissed the claims, concluding the plaintiffs did not meet their statutory duty. The court found:

  • The plaintiffs took no investigative steps for over a year after the collision, such as posting signs or advertisements to find witnesses.
  • The plaintiffs' reliance on police investigations was insufficient, as they failed to follow up when the investigation stalled.
  • The statutory duty required efforts as resolute as if no ICBC coverage existed.

Costs and Awards:
ICBC succeeded in defending all claims and was awarded costs at Scale B, with the exact monetary amount to be determined unless contested by the parties.

Conclusion:
The court emphasized the importance of proactive efforts by claimants under Section 24(5) and criticized ICBC for not proactively informing claimants of their statutory obligations, although this did not affect the outcome.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
M210655
Insurance law
Defendant