When a person is injured, he/she is required to act reasonably to mitigate or lessen the loss. No damages are recoverable for any loss that the injured person could have avoided through reasonable action.

On this issue, the burden of proof rests upon ICBC. That is, ICBC must prove on a balance of probabilities that the injured person did not act reasonably. Merely suggesting some other course that the injured person might have followed is not good enough. Criticism of the injured person's conduct by ICBC must be viewed with caution, as it was ICBC's insured who caused the damages in the first place.

The injured person is not held to a high standard of conduct in mitigation. The law is satisfied if the injured person takes steps that a reasonable person would take in the circumstances to reduce the loss.

Whether the injured person did act reasonably to reduce his/her damages is a question of fact for the Court. If ICBC satisfies the Court that the injured person did not act reasonably, the Court will not award the injured person compensation for any losses which could have been avoided had he/she acted reasonably to reduce the damages.