Basmadjian v. Kovac, 2025 BCCA 360 marks an important reaffirmation of pedestrian protections under section 179 of the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c 318.

Background

The Plaintiff, Annahis Basmadjian, was crossing Marine Drive at a marked crosswalk in West Vancouver. A bus in the curb lane slowed and then stopped to let her cross. She did not activate the pedestrian lights at the crosswalk before entering the intersection. As she jogged in front of the bus, the Defendant, Anna Kovac, overtook the slowing bus in the adjacent lane and struck the Plaintiff. Actions of both parties are not in dispute as video evidence from the bus clearly illustrates the events that transpired.

The Plaintiff sustained significant injuries. At trial, the determination of liability was left to a civil jury, which assigned an extraordinary 90% of the fault to the pedestrian. The Plaintiff appealed.

The Issues on Appeal

The BC Court of Appeal held that the trial judge made a significant legal error by leaving two key issues to the jury, even though the material facts were undisputed:

1. The Plaintiff had the statutory right of way under section 179(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
2. The Defendant clearly breached section 179(3) by passing a vehicle that was slowing or stopped at a crosswalk. 

The Court found this misdirection likely influenced the unusually harsh apportionment of fault against a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

The Law

Sections 179(1) and (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act require a driver to yield to a pedestrian who is crossing at a crosswalk, even when no traffic signals are operating, and prohibit passing a vehicle that is slowing or stopped at a crosswalk to let a pedestrian cross.

The trial Court explicitly rejected the idea that a driver’s “awareness” of a pedestrian plays a role in determining whether section 179(3) applies. 

The Decision

The Defendant had argued that she reasonably believed the bus was stopping for a bus stop, not for a pedestrian, and that this should factor into whether she breached the statute.

The BC Court of Appeal rejected this and determined that section 179(3) contains no awareness element. Drivers are required to assume a pedestrian may be present when a vehicle is slowing or stopped at a crosswalk. Allowing drivers to rely on assumptions or mistaken beliefs would “undermine the very purpose” of the statute.

This clarification reinforces the protective purpose of crosswalk rules. As the Court of Appeal noted, the provision exists precisely because pedestrians may be hidden from view by the vehicles that yield to them.

The Court, in reapportioning liability, noted that no case had ever found a pedestrian in similar circumstances to be more at fault than a driver. The Court of Appeal apportioned 70% of the fault to the Defendant and 30% to the Plaintiff after weighing their respective departures from the standard of reasonable care. 

The Defendant’s conduct was more serious as she breached a clear statutory prohibition by overtaking a vehicle stopped at a crosswalk. She was aware of the crosswalk, had ample time to recognize that the bus was slowing, and failed to maintain the ability to yield the right of way as required by section 179. In contrast, the Plaintiff’s negligence consisted of not activating the pedestrian-controlled flashing lights, jogging across the street rather than walking, and failing to look left for oncoming westbound traffic before entering the Defendant’s lane. The Court of Appeal concluded the Plaintiff’s lapse in judgment was significantly less serious than the Defendant’s statutory breach.

What Does This Mean for Alberta?

The legislation in Alberta mirrors the statutory duties imposed by legislation in British Columbia. Specifically, section 41 of the Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation, Alta Reg 304/2002, requires drivers to yield to pedestrians who are crossing within a crosswalk and further prohibits any driver from overtaking and passing another vehicle that has stopped at a crosswalk to allow a pedestrian to cross. Both the BC and Alberta statutes place the heavier burden on drivers, which is reflected in this decision.

Key Takeaways 

1. Section 179(3) reinforces that driver awareness is irrelevant. The Court of Appeal rejected any “awareness requirement.” A driver must assume a slowing or stopped vehicle at a crosswalk is yielding to a pedestrian. Defences based on mistaken assumptions (e.g., thinking a bus was stopping for a bus stop) have no legal relevance.
2. Pedestrian negligence does not override the driver’s primary statutory obligations. While a pedestrian may contribute to their own harm (e.g., distraction, jogging, failing to activate lights), these factors will rarely outweigh a driver’s breach of section 179(3). This decision highlights that drivers hold the greater duty of care in crosswalk situations.