BCSC: Strutt v British Columbia Minor Injury Defence Amendment Denied

• The British Columbia Supreme Court denied the Public Safety Minister's request to add a minor injury defence to a civil claim stemming from a 2019 collision.
• The court found an 'exceptionally long' delay of nearly six years in seeking the amendment, which the minister, as a sophisticated party, failed to adequately explain.
• The proposed minor injury defence was deemed 'bound to fail' because the plaintiff's complete supraspinatus tear did not meet the Minor Injury Regulation's definition of a 'strain'.
• Allowing the amendment would have caused extensive, uncompensable prejudice to the plaintiff, including financial strain and further delays, potentially until 2029.
• The ruling emphasizes the strict scrutiny applied to delays in pleading statutory defences and the specific classification of injuries under the Minor Injury Regulation.

The court characterized the nearly six-year delay in seeking the amendment as "exceptionally long" and found the minister's explanation for this protracted period insufficient, especially given the defendant's status as a sophisticated party expected to be aware of relevant legislation and defence applicability.

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently denied an application by the BC Public Safety and Solicitor General to amend a civil claim response, a decision outlined in Strutt v British Columbia (Public Safety and Solicitor General), 2026 BCSC 2140. This case originated from a vehicle collision on May 15, 2019, at the intersection of 27th Street and Anderson Way in Vernon, BC, involving the plaintiff and an RCMP member operating a vehicle. The plaintiff initiated a civil claim on May 4, 2020, seeking damages for injuries sustained in the incident.

In March, the defendant minister filed a notice of application, seeking to introduce a minor injury defence into the proceedings. This proposed amendment aimed to classify the plaintiff's claim under Section 101(1) of British Columbia's Insurance (Vehicle) Act, 1996 (IVA), and Parts 1 and 2 of the Minor Injury Regulation, BC Reg 234/2018. Furthermore, the minister contended that the claim's value fell within the monetary limits specified by Section 133(1)(c) of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, 2012 (CRTA), and Section 7 of the Accident Claims Regulation, BC Reg 233/2018, suggesting the matter should be handled by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT).

The plaintiff opposed this proposed BCSC minor injury defence amendment, arguing that it lacked a reasonable defence given the nature of his injuries, the significant delay in bringing the application, and the substantial prejudice it would cause. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the plaintiff, rejecting the minister's request to amend the response to the civil claim.

The legal framework surrounding minor injury claims in British Columbia is established by the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, 1996 (IVA), specifically Section 101(1), and further defined by the Minor Injury Regulation (BC Reg 234/2018). These provisions aim to streamline certain injury claims, often by limiting recoverable damages and, crucially, by potentially diverting them to the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT).

The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, 2012 (CRTA), along with its Accident Claims Regulation (BC Reg 233/2018), outlines the CRT's jurisdiction over specific motor vehicle accident claims, including those designated as minor injuries. A successful minor injury defence can significantly alter the trajectory of a personal injury case, impacting both the quantum of damages available to a plaintiff and the forum in which their claim is adjudicated. This shift in jurisdiction and potential cap on damages underscores the importance of the Strutt v British Columbia minor injury defence ruling.

The Supreme Court's decision to deny the delay amend civil claim BC application was heavily influenced by the extensive delay and the resulting prejudice to the plaintiff. The court characterized the nearly six-year delay in seeking the amendment as

Lawyers in British Columbia personal injury cases must ensure timely pleading of statutory defences, particularly the minor injury defence under the IVA, as courts will strictly scrutinize delays and potential prejudice to plaintiffs, especially when sophisticated parties are involved. This ruling also provides clarity that a complete supraspinatus muscle tear is unlikely to be classified as a 'minor injury' under the current regulation, impacting injury assessment and claims strategy.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer