Why the Injuries Resolution Board Is Not in Claimants’ Best Interests — A Response to the Alliance for Insurance Reform

We recently came across a blog post from the Alliance for Insurance Reform titled “Public unaware Injuries Resolution Board is cheaper than court”, and the bias was, frankly, astonishing. It reads like a promotional piece for insurers dressed up as public interest commentary. The idea being sold is that the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) — formerly known as the PIAB — is some kind of ideal solution for personal injury claimants. Faster, cheaper, simpler. But what they fail to say is that it’s faster and cheaper mostly for insurance companies — and rarely in the best interest of the injured person.

Let’s start with the most important fact the article completely overlooks: the Injuries Board does not owe claimants a duty of care. That means there is no legal obligation for the Board to act in your best interest, to advise you on your claim, or to ensure you’re not walking away with less than you deserve. It is an administrative body, not a protective one. This is a detail most people are unaware of — and the Alliance certainly wasn’t rushing to highlight it.

The idea that the Board is a friendly, claimant-first service is misleading. While the blog post argues that there’s no need to use a solicitor and that the process is simple and straightforward, the truth is very different. The IRB process is full of legal and procedural landmines. If you name the wrong party, miss a deadline under the Statute of Limitations, or fail to include the proper medical documentation, your claim can be delayed or dismissed. There’s no one guiding you through this — you’re entirely on your own unless you seek outside legal help, which the article subtly discourages.

Another major red flag is the assumption that quicker means better. Many claims assessed by the IRB take months, sometimes over a year. And even then, nearly half of all awards are rejected by claimants. Why? Because the compensation offered is often well below what a court would likely award. The Board operates within tight guidelines, often leading to conservative awards that don’t reflect the full scope of the claimant’s loss — especially in cases involving ongoing pain, loss of income, or psychological trauma. But when claimants walk away, they’ve already wasted time and are often worn down by the process.

It’s also important to point out that the IRB won’t even assess certain types of claims. Medical negligence, for example, is outside their remit entirely. These claims require expert medical opinions and cross-examination — things the IRB process simply doesn’t allow for. That’s the crux of the problem. The IRB was designed for speed and simplicity, not accuracy or fairness. So, if your case involves nuance, complexity, or long-term impact, the system just isn’t built for you.

Let’s not forget the financial pressure applied when a claimant dares to reject the Board’s award and pursue their claim in court. If the final court award ends up being lower than the IRB’s original offer — even by a small amount — the claimant could be made to pay the defendant’s legal costs. That’s not justice; that’s a disincentive to fight for fair compensation. It subtly coerces people into settling for less than they may be legally entitled to, just to avoid the risk of being punished for seeking a better outcome.

There’s also the matter of how evidence is treated. The entire IRB process is paper-based. There’s no hearing. No chance to challenge another party’s version of events. No opportunity for a judge to see who is credible or to hear how the injury has affected someone’s life. If the claim involves disputed facts, grey areas, or if the defendant has given a misleading account, the claimant has no way to set the record straight.

Perhaps most frustrating is the way the Alliance’s article wraps all this up in a narrative of efficiency and benevolence. As if the IRB is a gift to injured people. In truth, it’s a cost-saving mechanism for the insurance industry. It limits payouts, discourages legal representation, and streamlines claims in a way that favours corporate balance sheets over human stories. The Alliance for Insurance Reform is presenting a version of the system that works best for their stakeholders — not for the people who’ve had their lives upended by accidents, injuries, or negligence.

People need to understand what they’re stepping into. The Injuries Resolution Board may be appropriate for very minor injuries in cases where liability isn’t contested and the impact is short-term. But beyond that narrow window, it’s often a poor choice. Claimants deserve to be properly advised, fairly compensated, and supported throughout what is often a deeply stressful process. They don’t get that from a system that’s designed to close files, not to deliver justice.

The bottom line is this: don’t confuse cheaper with better. And don’t be taken in by PR that serves insurers. If you’ve been injured, get independent legal advice before you decide to trust a process that isn’t required to protect you. Because it won’t.