Bill 47 and access to justice in Alberta

On November 21, 2024, the Alberta Government announced plans to implement a no-fault system of auto insurance on January 1, 2027.

The system was described by Finance Minister Nate Horner, as a “care first model” with the best benefits in Canada provided by Alberta’s private auto insurers. The model, according to Minister Horner, is one which does not take away the right to sue because Albertans won’t need to sue. The system will lower rates for premium holders. Albertans were promised savings of $400 once the system is implemented.

Alberta’s auto insurers will be permitted to increase rates for good drivers to a maximum of 7.5% in 2025. This includes an additional “rate rider” of 2.5% to account for the costs of extreme weather events. The rate increase for 2026 is not yet known.

On May 13, 2025, Bill 47, the Automobile Insurance Act, the legislation capturing no-fault auto insurance, passed third reading along party lines, with 42 votes for and 15 against.

Under Bill 47, benefits are payable to all individuals who sustain bodily injury or death in an accident regardless of who is at fault for an accident. Tort, or legal actions, for injury or death are not permitted.

The Automobile Care-First Tribunal will be established, funded by private insurers, in place of the existing court remedies. A claimant who disagrees with a decision of their insurer can appeal to the tribunal whose decision is “final and conclusive and not open to question or review in any court”.

While judicial reviews are available, success in a judicial review does not mean a different decision is made. Courts can only review/remit the matter back to the tribunal for reconsideration.

While there is reticence to call Care-First a WCB-style system, it is precisely that. The principles of workers’ compensation include benefits for work related injury (or death) despite the presence of fault on the part of the worker and protection from a lawsuit for those within the system. Workers’ compensation is meant to replace any tort remedy.

Bill 47 and WCB legislation are remarkably similar in that benefits are paid regardless of fault to all individuals who sustain injury, legal rights are largely eliminated, and courts are replaced by tribunals in which decisions are not open to question or review in any court.

Part 3 of Bill 47 contains tort bar exceptions, permitting legal actions for limited damages based on certain actions of an at-fault driver (“criminal conviction/TSA conviction”). The offences are not yet known, but a glimpse at Alberta collision statistics in 2023 tells us how few Albertans will be able to sue.

In 2023, alcohol impairment was noted in 6% of major injury collisions and 5.2% of fatal. This statistic does not tell us what percentage led to a conviction. Conversely, the condition of driver was listed as normal, fatigue, or other for 92.6% of fatal collisions and 86.5% of major injury collisions.

The Alberta government’s recent intention paper states Albertans will be able to sue for pain and suffering where the at-fault driver is convicted of a driving or murder related offence under the Criminal Code or of impaired driving and certain offences under the Traffic Safety Act.  The statistics for impaired driving demonstrate that few victims will have the right to sue and those that do will have their recovery limited. A criminally convicted at fault driver is more protected under Bill 47 than the innocent victim of this driver’s negligence.

Tort actions are additionally permitted for pecuniary damages in excess of the policy; however, the Intention Paper appears to further limit this. Albertans will not be able to sue for out-of-pocket expenses which are not otherwise covered by Care-First. This qualifier inserts a Care-First element into what should be determined judicially by common law principles.

Bill 47 is an attack on access to justice. In 2018, Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada described access to justice as including the financial ability to get legal assistance when you need it and having confidence that a system will come to a just result:  this is a democratic, human rights and economic issue according to Justice Wagner.

British Columbia implemented a public no-fault system for auto insurance on May 1, 2021. Justice Bennett of the British Columbia Court of Appeal addressed access to justice (in dissent) in her reasons for judgment analyzing the British Columbia government’s decision to move to a no-fault auto insurance system, including transferring jurisdiction from the courts to a tribunal.  This transfer had little, if anything, to do with access to justice and was centered on a political objective of keeping basic insurance rates low.  This objective was not one which justified the transfer of jurisdiction to the Civil Resolution Tribunal, which operates differently from independent courts.  The public must have assurances decision makers are independent and Justice Bennett felt this was not possible with the structure of the CRT: how can a tribunal established by the province be seen to deal fairly with claimants when the reason for existence is keeping rates low (saving ICBC money).

The reasoning of Justice Bennett was prophetic, with a recent article demonstrating that, in BC’s tribunal system, ICBC was found to be successful in 73% of cases with the author concluding that “ICBC’s no-fault system creates access to justice concerns and significant bargaining inequalities for those injured in MVA’s that are not overcome by recourse to the CRT”.

Alberta’s Care-First Tribunal will not be independent in any meaningful way, since the tribunal will be funded by private insurers. 

While a WCB style system may be precisely what the Government of Alberta and insurance industry desire, Albertans have not been fully informed about the loss of existing legal rights and remedies.

When the Alberta Government was considering changes to auto insurance in the spring of 2024, an online engagement survey was conducted. 16,000 Albertans completed the survey. 73% of respondents who completed the survey indicated the ability to sue an at-fault was important to them. Of the respondents who had been injured in an accident in the past 5 years, 86% indicated the ability to sue was important to them.

Most recently, CBA Alberta released a survey, conducted by Nanos, in which 75% of respondents told the Alberta Government the right to sue is important to them. Personal responsibility and accountability rate are even higher in importance at 82%.

Ony one in five Albertans believe it is likely auto insurance premiums will go down if the Government of Alberta creates a no-fault system administered by for-profit insurers.

The Alberta Government created a website to inform Albertans of these changes. IBC did the same. The Alberta government website tells Albertans that, “if you’re injured in an accident, you’ll get the care that you need, as long as you need it.” Entitlement to benefits and treatment is not guaranteed. Treatment is provided for as long as there is a “measurable benefit” for a common, serious, or catastrophic injury. The definitions of each type of injury are not yet known. Extensive regulations will dictate entitlement. It is far from clear that an injured Albertan will get the care they need for as long as they need it.

On its website, Better Auto Alberta, IBC states that a new auto insurance system is needed, as Albertans injured in collisions do not get the timely medical care and income support that they need. In Alberta currently, mandatory auto insurance coverage is provided to occupants of a vehicle and pedestrians if a bodily injury or death results from the use or operation of a vehicle. The current accident benefit coverage is available regardless of fault and includes medical payments up to $50,000 and total disability benefits for up to two years. For most claimants, these limits are more than sufficient. The average accident benefit claim in Alberta falls well below the $50,000 limit, with claims from 2021, 2022 and 2023 averaging over $8,500.

IBC’s suggestion that Albertans are not getting the timely medical care and support that they need in the current system is misleading. Furthermore, it belies the fact that insurers are responsible for the payment of this medical care. Will increased benefit entitlement under Bill 47 to all individuals regardless of who is at fault lead to premium relief?