ICBC decisions should be subject to independent review, counselling an offence is also and offence, and aboriginal title vs sovereignty

If BC moves to an ICBC monopoly no-fault auto insurance system, as has been proposed, the suggested avenues for a review of ICBC decisions would not be adequate, or fair. Apart from an ombudsperson, and fairness offer, who would have no actual authority to correct unfair decisions by ICBC, what has been suggested is to use the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The Civil Resolution Tribunal was designed to deal with very small civil and strata property disputes. It is not an appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes where one of the parties is a government-owned insurance company. This is because members of the Civil Resolution Tribunal are hired on short term contracts by the government of between 2 and 4 years, with the possibility of renewal.Disputes should not be resolved by someone employed by the government that also owns the insurance company.Unlike with an independent judge, a member of the Civil Resolution Tribunal may be legitimately concerned about keeping their job if they make decisions unfavourable to the government.  Also discussed on the show are the Criminal Code provisions that make it an offence to counsel someone to commit a criminal office. This is relevant in the context of people urging others to block highways or other infrastructure. The act of encouraging others to engage in this activity is, itself, a crime even if the suggested activity doesn’t occur.Finally, a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning s. 35 aboriginal rights in the context of a mining development that straddles Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador is discussed.The Supreme Court of Canada spends some time reviewing the nature of aboriginal title and confirming that it is not a right to sovereign control over territory. As is the case with other forms of title to property, such as fee simple title to a home, Canadian, and provincial, laws still apply and, where there is a compelling public need to use the property the government is able to do so. In the case of property held in a regular fee simple fashion, the provincial and federal governments can not only enforce laws on the property but can expropriate it for public purposes. That is how it’s possible to build highways, sewer systems, and other infrastructure even if a property owner doesn’t consent to this.Suggestions that aboriginal groups retain sovereign control over land, or that aboriginal title affords a veto over the use of land, are inconsistent with Canadian law. Follow this link for a transcript of the show, and links to the cases discussed.