On behalf of the ACTLA Board of Directors and Executive Director
Edmonton, AB, Mar. 27, 2026 - The Alberta Civil Trial Lawyers Association (ACTLA) says the actuarial costing relied on to support Care‑First does not demonstrate that the proposed system will deliver the anticipated savings for Albertans, nor that it will protect injured Albertans’ access to benefits and fair dispute resolution in practice.
While Oliver Wyman’s final report makes several important adjustments to its earlier analysis, ACTLA says those changes confirm that the original estimates understated key risks rather than resolving them. Comments submitted to the government by insurers and the Insurance Bureau of Canada similarly acknowledge substantial uncertainty in the actuarial assumptions being used. Despite those acknowledgements, the report continues to rely on optimistic assumptions about how disputes will be handled in a new, untested private benefits system.
“The revisions show that stakeholder concerns were well‑founded,” said Laura Comfort, Chair of ACTLA. “But the bigger issue remains unanswered: whether the premium benchmark actually reflects the real cost of delivering care, resolving disputes, and ensuring injured Albertans can access what they’re entitled to.”
ACTLA says one of the most significant unanswered questions is dispute handling. Care‑First would replace much of the court system with a new tribunal process funded by insurers, yet the costing assumes disputes will be resolved efficiently and at low cost without fully accounting for how a no‑fault system administered by private insurers operates in practice.
“Care‑First doesn’t eliminate disputes,” Comfort said. “It changes where and how they happen. People will still disagree about whether benefits are available, how long they should last, what treatment is reasonable, and what medical evidence is required. If those disputes are slow, complex, or expensive to resolve, access to justice suffers—and so does premium adequacy.”
ACTLA is particularly concerned that the costing relies heavily on Manitoba’s public insurance experience as a benchmark, a concern echoed by Alberta insurers. Manitoba operates a single, government insurer with decades of experience, mandatory internal review, centralized medical and vocational resources, and salaried decision‑makers. Most disputes are resolved internally before they ever reach an appeal body. Alberta’s proposed system would be a private, multi‑insurer model with very different incentives, accountability structures, and legal dynamics.
“Manitoba’s low appeal numbers are not the result of no‑fault alone,” Comfort said. “They are the product of a tightly controlled public system that resolves disputes upstream. You cannot assume those outcomes will repeat in a private system where insurers, not the public, control claims decisions.”
Ontario’s experience highlights that risk. Ontario also limits tort access and relies on a tribunal to resolve benefits disputes, yet it sees approximately 16,000 auto‑injury tribunal applications every year, many taking months or longer to resolve and is supported by a large, industry‑funded adjudication system. Manitoba, by contrast, sees roughly 200 appeals annually. On a per‑capita basis, Ontarians bring seven to eight times more auto‑injury disputes than Manitobans, reflecting how private systems and dispute incentives operate in practice.
“There are only two true no‑fault reference points in Canada,” Comfort said. “A public monopoly system like Manitoba, which suppresses disputes before they reach appeal, and a private system like Ontario, which processes thousands of benefit disputes each year and remains the most expensive auto insurance system in the country. Alberta is proposing a private system—but pricing it as if it will behave like a public one.”
ACTLA also warns that the early years of Care‑First are likely to be the most difficult. When a new system launches, insurers, injured people, lawyers, and adjudicators all test entitlement rules, evidentiary standards, cost recovery, timelines, and the boundaries of residual tort access for the first time. That transition period is typically when disputes increase, take longer to resolve, and cost more. Those early‑year risks and start‑up expenses were expressly excluded from the costing model, even though Alberta insurers have identified them as real costs they will be required to manage.
Industry submissions also cast doubt on whether anticipated savings will materialize for all drivers. The Insurance Bureau of Canada has noted that premium outcomes will vary significantly by individual circumstance, and that some drivers—particularly those already subject to rate caps—may see little or no savings under ongoing rate intervention.
From an access‑to‑justice perspective, ACTLA says underpricing the system creates a serious risk. If premiums are set too low at launch, pressure will mount to control costs through stricter benefit interpretations, longer delays, or procedural barriers that make it harder for injured people to challenge decisions. When that happens, disputes do not disappear—they become harder, slower, and less fair to resolve.
“Access to care and fairness in disputes are not optional features,” Comfort said. “They are core promises of any system that is meant to look after people when they’re hurt. If those promises are not properly costed, the system will fail the people it’s supposed to protect.”
ACTLA is calling on the Alberta Insurance Rate Board and the Government of Alberta to pause implementation, provide premium ranges rather than single figures, and publicly test how the system would perform under higher dispute volumes, longer timelines, and different tribunal outcomes. ACTLA also says any credible costing must reflect the reality of launching a new private system, not an idealized version of how it might operate years into the future.
“Affordability matters,” Comfort said. “But affordability means little if injured Albertans can’t get timely decisions, can’t navigate the system, or can’t enforce their rights. Pricing the system too low at the start only delays the problem and makes the consequences worse.”
ACTLA supports a transparent, independent review of the assumptions underlying Care‑First, particularly those affecting dispute resolution, access to justice, and the real cost of delivering benefits in a private insurance environment.
.png){kind=spacer}
.png)
.png)
.png)
