The BC Supreme Court has ruled that a letter sent out by the ICBC to its policyholders did not taint a jury pool, stating that the trial judge would be able to deal with any suggestion of bias.
The ruling came after the provincial auto insurer had sent out a letter blaming increased insurance rates on ‘rising injury costs,’ amid concerns that the jury pool had been tainted in the case of Yates v. Lee, in which the plaintiff had been injured in a 1998 collision.
According to the BC Injury Law and ICBC Claims Blog website, the judge ruled to allow a jury trial for the following three reasons:
“(a) the court is asked to find that ICBC’s communication to its policy holders through the renewal notices constitutes prejudicial pre-trial misconduct in the absence of an adequate evidentiary foundation;
“(b) to grant the relief sought would skirt the challenge for cause process by having the court make a determination of juror partiality without requiring the plaintiff to satisfy both branches of the well-established test for juror partiality, and without any inquiry to determine whether particular members of the juror pool selected for this case could not serve impartially; and
“(c) another decision-maker, the trial judge, has all the powers necessary to ensure trial fairness.”
The case in question is set for trial in February, 2015.
The Plaintiff argued that the court should use its inherent jurisdiction to strip ICBC of their right to jury trial suggesting that the letter ICBC sent their policy holders “has tainted the jury pool by creating a real potential for bias against plaintiffs among jurors who are policy holders.”
Mr. Justice Pearlman disagreed finding there was no reason for the court to use its inherent jurisdiction and the trial judge could deal with any suggestion of bias.
