Following a narrow UCP member vote to scrap the proposal, a Calgary injury lawyer is demanding Premier Danielle Smith immediately ditch the government’s controversial “Care-First” insurance model.
“Back to the drawing board. I really think that’s what it is. At the end of the day, Alberta is a province. We’re built on our rights, on our independence, and when we have a policy on the floor that’s being passed through legislature right now, that takes away those rights. We’ve seen the grassroots don’t want that,” he said. “I think it’s a clear message to the premier, to the finance minister, let’s take this. Let’s go back to the drawing board and let’s figure something out that works for everybody.”
The Alberta government plans to implement the “Care-First” model in 2027. Earlier this fall, Smith defended the changes, telling Juno News’ Keean Bexte that “people are going to be unhappy either way” when asked whether the reforms would lower premiums.
Van Vliet said the close vote at the annual general meeting should prompt reconsideration, noting Smith’s past opposition to no-fault insurance.
“The Premier, back in the early 2000s, was one of the biggest outspoken advocates against no-fault insurance. We’ve seen a change once before. I’m confident with the grassroots speaking that this will send them a clear message, ‘Guys, let’s not do this. Let’s not be copying David Eby and the NDP and B.C. Let’s get something that works here,’” said Van Vliet.
The policy resolution, though one of the closest votes of the night, passed at the UCP AGM in Edmonton. It was one of 36 policy resolutions that passed; only one failed, largely due to unclear wording.
“Repeal the no-fault insurance legislation in Alberta and return to tort-based (also known as at-fault based) insurance,” reads the resolution.
The resolution’s rationale stated it would encourage safer driving and ensure only legitimate claims are compensated.
“Repealing the no-fault insurance legislation in Alberta and returning to a tort-based system aligns with conservative values by promoting personal responsibility and accountability, ensuring fair compensation based on fault and reducing fraudulent claims,” it said.
Van Vliet admitted Alberta’s insurance premiums are too high but said the proposed changes would benefit insurers. He also reminded Albertans that while the party initially promised $400 in annual savings, the insurance bureau has since said prices will increase.
“So if we’re looking for ways to bring down rates, let’s do that. Let’s cap minor claims. Let’s make it more difficult to bring frivolous things to the floor,” he said. “But for the people who need it most, for the people who are catastrophically injured, let’s ensure that those people have their day in court, the ability to have their story heard and their rights protected.”
The lawyer explained that 80 per cent of litigation costs stem from minor injury cases. He suggested removing some of these to reduce costs, while maintaining the right to sue for people with more serious injuries.
He added that B.C. has a government-run bureaucratic panel to decide injuries and claims.
“Once the insurance company makes that decision, it’s final. There’s no right of appeal. They use their own doctors to say people don’t have injuries when they very clearly do. What this does instead is it gives all the power to the insurance companies to cut off your rights, cut off your care,” said Van Vliet.
The crash lawyer said that B.C.’s panel decides in favour of the “multi-billion dollar insurance companies” 91 per cent of the time.
“This just isn’t something that victims can afford in Alberta right now,” he said.
The province previously unveiled draft injury compensation rules under the new legislation.
The document outlined payments ranging from $945 for the loss of colour vision to $56,717 for the loss of an eye, and up to $66,169 for a moderate traumatic brain injury.
Under the same schedule, the loss of a pregnancy after 20 weeks would result in a payment of $18,906, while a pregnancy loss before 20 weeks would amount to $13,234. Partial amputation of a hand would receive $41,592.
Van Vliet explained that “insurance law isn’t something that people typically interact with until they need it most.”
“And God forbid that happens to people. But, in the event that they are injured in an accident, it’s important to know that they have their full rights and that their government is supporting them with those rights,” he said. “I’m confident that the Premier and the finance minister can come to the table, bring stakeholders together, not just lawyers and insurance companies, but accident victims, people who have traversed the system, physiotherapists, and find something that works a lot better than the policy that they’re putting forward right now.”