On January 1, 2027, Alberta replaces its current “tort” auto insurance system with a no-fault model the government calls Care-First. After that date, most injured people will claim a set schedule of benefits from their own insurer instead of suing the driver who hurt them. If you are injured in a crash before 2027, your right to sue is generally preserved — but strict time limits apply.
This page explains what no-fault insurance is, what the Government of Alberta says it will deliver, what we believe it will mean for injured Albertans, and what you can do now. Our firm has opposed no-fault auto insurance for years, and we are a proud supporter of FAIR Alberta. We have also gathered our detailed analysis into the blog posts linked throughout.
No-fault insurance changes who pays you after a collision and what you can claim. Today, the person who caused the crash is responsible for the harm they caused. Under no-fault, that responsibility largely disappears, and you turn to your own insurer for a fixed set of benefits — no matter who was at fault.
Alberta currently uses a “tort” system. Tort simply means a civil wrong. If a careless driver injures you, you have the right to pursue that driver — through their insurance company — for the full range of your losses: pain and suffering, lost income, and the cost of your future care. A court, not an insurer, has the final say on what is fair. (For a fuller walk-through, see How the Personal Injury Claim Process Works.)
Under Care-First, most injured people will no longer be able to sue the at-fault driver. Instead, your own insurer pays benefits on a government-set schedule, regardless of fault. The Government of Alberta describes this as care without the wait and promises treatment beginning within weeks, the highest benefit levels in Canada, and more stable premiums (Government of Alberta, Care-First auto insurance). The trade-off — explained below — is that an insurer, not a court, decides what your injury is worth.
For any crash on or after January 1, 2027, you will generally claim a fixed schedule of benefits from your own insurer rather than suing the driver who hurt you.
Here is the honest version of the trade-off, using the government’s own figures.
What the government says you gain:
(Figures from the Government of Alberta Care-First page and its benefits comparison. Note that none of these dollar amounts appears in the legislation itself — see How will “permanent impairment” be decided?.)
What you give up — and the fine print:
For our detailed analysis of why we believe this shifts power to insurers, see Alberta No-Fault Auto Insurance Gives Insurers All the Power and Alberta’s “Care First” Insurance Model: Lower Costs—But for Whom?.
If your crash happened, or happens, before January 1, 2027, you are generally still under the current tort system — even if your treatment and recovery continue well into 2027 or later. That means your right to pursue the at-fault driver for full compensation is generally preserved.
But you do not have unlimited time. In Alberta, you generally have two years from the date of the accident to start a lawsuit, with limited exceptions (for example, for children or people unable to manage their own affairs). Once that window closes, it is gone.
Injured in a crash? Your right to pursue legal action against an at-fault driver will soon change. On January 1, 2027, Alberta moves to no-fault insurance. Talk to an experienced Edmonton injury lawyer. Your consultation is free. Call (780) 760-4878 (HURT) or request a free consultation.
In narrow cases, yes — but the exception is much narrower than it sounds, and it does not depend on how badly you were hurt.
Under Care-First, you keep the right to sue an at-fault driver only in narrow circumstances that turn on that driver’s conduct. The regulations, now published, set out when.
You may sue a driver found guilty of a prescribed Criminal Code offence. The list includes impaired operation, operation over the legal limit, impaired operation causing bodily harm or death, refusing or failing to provide a breath sample, dangerous operation, failing to stop after an accident, flight from a peace officer, criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death, and manslaughter.
You may also sue a driver issued a notice of administrative penalty under prescribed sections of the Traffic Safety Act. That route does not require a criminal charge or a conviction.
Either way, it is a test of the other driver’s conduct, not a test of your injury. Someone left with a permanent brain injury by an ordinary distracted driver would have no right to sue. Someone with moderate injuries caused by an impaired driver may.
Three things make that exception harder to use than it appears.
We set out these problems in more detail in the FAQ below: If I know the driver was drunk or driving dangerously, can I still lose my right to sue?
If you were hurt by a drunk or dangerous driver, the tort route may still be open to you even after the switch. See our Drunk Driver page.
For everyone else injured on or after January 1, 2027, the main way to protect your access to treatment and income will be challenging your insurer’s decisions — for example, when benefits are denied or cut off. That is a different kind of fight, and one where experienced legal help still matters.
After a crash under no-fault, you claim compensation from your own insurance company on a fixed schedule of benefits — regardless of who caused the collision. In exchange, your right to sue the at-fault driver for your full losses is removed in most cases. Alberta adopts this system, branded “Care-First,” on January 1, 2027. (See What Is No-Fault Insurance?)
Yes. “Care-First” is the Government of Alberta’s name for its no-fault system. The label emphasizes medical care, but the legal substance is no-fault: your own insurer pays set benefits, and the right to sue an at-fault driver is largely eliminated. (See Lower Costs—But for Whom?)
January 1, 2027. Crashes on or after that date fall under the no-fault rules. Crashes before that date are generally handled under the current tort system — but strict time limits apply to starting a claim. (See What Will No-Fault Mean for Albertans?)
In most cases, yes. A crash that happens before January 1, 2027 is generally governed by the current tort system, which preserves your right to pursue an at-fault driver — even if your treatment continues into 2027 or later. Strict legal time limits apply, so acting promptly matters. To protect yourself, consult a respected Alberta injury lawyer.
In Alberta you generally have two years from the date of the accident to start a lawsuit, with limited exceptions (for example, for children or people unable to manage their own affairs). Because the no-fault switch adds urgency, confirm your specific deadline with an injury lawyer as soon as possible. (See How the Personal Injury Claim Process Works.)
Yes. Under no-fault insurance, your right to sue is dependent on a conviction of the drunk or reckless driver. Conviction can fail for a number of reasons.
Police in Alberta are understaffed and lack resources. Delays in arrival at the scene of an accident can result in the loss of crucial evidence. A breathalyzer test may be applied too late. In some cases, the police may not have enough evidence to lay criminal charges.
Even if the police decide there is enough evidence to lay a criminal charge, the Crown Prosecutor may plea the charge down based on the likelihood of a successful prosecution. In that case, your right to sue under one of the stipulated exceptions disappears.
For many years, the Alberta court system has been heavily backlogged, and a criminal charge can take many months to reach trial. The Supreme Court of Canada treats 18 months in provincial court and 30 months in superior court as the presumptive outer limit before delay becomes unreasonable. The regulations do provide that your two-year deadline is not treated as running until the finding of guilt or the penalty notice, so a slow prosecution should not by itself cost you the claim — but you may wait a long time to learn whether you have one.
Two things may still help you. Refusing or failing to provide a breath sample is itself a qualifying offence, so a driver who avoids an impaired conviction by refusing the test may still be suable. And a driver issued certain roadside administrative penalties can be sued without any criminal charge at all. If your case took either of those turns, do not assume your claim is gone — ask. (See Drunk Driver Accident Lawyer; Government of Alberta.)
Possibly. The bar on lawsuits under Care-First is aimed at the at-fault driver. The Act itself preserves claims against a specific list of third parties whose acts or omissions caused or contributed to your injury: an automobile manufacturer; a maker or supplier of automobile parts; a business engaged in selling automobiles; a garage services operator; the holder of a liquor licence, for its role in selling or providing liquor; a social host who invites guests to an event where liquor is served; and a municipality that has direction, control, and management of the road on which the crash occurred. These claims do not depend on anyone being convicted of anything.
They are harder, slower, and more expensive to prove than a claim against the driver. Damages are still limited to pain and suffering and punitive damages, and each party is liable only in proportion to their own share of the fault. Unlike a claim against the driver, though, these third parties keep their insurance backing. But if you are injured on or after January 1, 2027 and no charge is laid, this is a question worth putting to an injury lawyer rather than assuming the door has closed.
The government presents lower premiums as the main benefit of Care-First. But the savings are projected to come largely from removing legal costs. How much drivers will actually save — and who benefits most — remains a live question.
Yes. Read your policy and pay close attention to any optional coverage your insurer offers you.
Under Care-First, income replacement is capped — currently at 90% of net income, calculated on gross earnings up to $125,000 a year — and medical and other expenses are capped by the benefit schedule. Insurers may offer optional excess coverage that pays above those caps.
Important: The regulations provide that if your insurer offered you an excess compensation option and you declined it, you have no right of action for the losses that option would have covered — including against a driver found guilty of impaired driving. The same applies on every renewal. And unless your broker was grossly negligent, you cannot sue the broker over the declined coverage either. Turning down an add-on whose significance was never explained to you could cost you the right to claim career-ending income loss.
We are not insurance brokers and we do not sell coverage. But we would say the same thing to any Albertan: before January 1, 2027, ask your broker in writing what excess coverage is available, what it costs, and what you give up by declining it. Keep the answer.
No. Your legal fees come from your settlement, not the insurance company. If insurance companies compensated people fairly, injury lawyers would not have a job. That’s the bottom line. But injury victims who are represented by experienced injury lawyers generally receive more compensation, even after the injury lawyer’s fee is paid — that’s the only way injury lawyers can stay in business.
Successful injury lawyers tell their injury clients whether an insurance settlement offer is fair or not.
If it is not fair, the injury lawyer explains why, discusses and recommends a strategy to obtain fair compensation, and lets the client know both the risks and the approximate net increase in compensation they can expect after the injury lawyer’s fee is taken from the settlement payment.
Remember, injury lawyers have to be convinced that increased compensation is warranted because they work on a no-win, no-fee basis.
Injury lawyers are a convenient target for the government – and the insurance industry – to blame, but there is no evidence that they are the cause of expensive insurance premiums. Their job is to help injury victims obtain the fair compensation they deserve.
In my view, the trade-off the government is asking Albertans to accept is the possibility of future lower insurance premiums in return for a significant reduction in individual freedom and rights. (See Lower Costs—But for Whom?)
Your own insurer applies the benefits schedule and makes the key decisions. The independent court oversight that lets a judge weigh your evidence is largely removed for most claims, which concentrates significant power with insurers. (See Gives Insurers All the Power)
For your benefits, no. You claim from your own insurer whether or not the collision was your fault, and for people who were partly or wholly at fault, that is a real improvement over the current system. For your right to sue, fault alone is not enough — the at-fault driver must be convicted of a prescribed offence. And fault has not disappeared: insurers will still assign responsibility for a collision, and that assessment can still affect what you pay for insurance.
Yes, and this is new. Under the current system your own conduct does not reduce your Section B benefits. Under Care-First it can.
If you are charged with or found guilty of certain offences, or issued a roadside administrative penalty, your insurer may reduce your income replacement, loss-of-studies, retirement income, permanent impairment, or death benefits. Some offences allow your insurer to suspend, terminate, or refuse benefits altogether — including auto theft offences and the most serious Criminal Code offences.
There are limits. A reduction based on your share of fault is capped at half, and for income benefits it applies only to the first twelve months after the crash. If a charge does not end in a finding of guilt, or you successfully appeal, your insurer must repay what it withheld. Benefits can also be suspended while you are in custody or serving a sentence, whether or not it relates to the crash.
One quirk is worth knowing: the size of the reduction falls as your number of dependants rises. A person with four or more dependants faces a fifth of the reduction applied to someone with none.
If your benefits have been cut for any of these reasons, get advice. The rules are detailed and the arithmetic is easy to get wrong.
Yes. A few situations fall outside Care-First entirely, which means no benefits from this system:
There is also a hard exclusion for passengers. If you voluntarily rode in a vehicle knowing, or where you reasonably ought to have known, that it was uninsured or being used for an illicit purpose, you get no compensation — and neither does anyone else claiming in respect of your injury. A minor is presumed not to have known.
These are narrow categories, but the consequences are absolute. If any of them might apply to you, speak to an injury lawyer rather than assuming you are covered.
Section B benefits are the medical and disability benefits your own auto policy pays after a crash, regardless of fault. Section B benefits can include death, funeral, and housekeeping expenses. They exist today alongside your right to sue.
Under Care-First, the right to sue is largely removed after 2026. Insurer-paid benefits become the main route to compensation — that much the Act settles. How today’s Section B coverage will be restructured to deliver the new benefits is not yet settled; Alberta’s 2027 policy forms are still drafts.
One protection is worth knowing. If your insurer overpays you through its own error, it generally cannot claw the money back. Where it is entitled to recover an overpayment, it may take no more than half of each future benefit payment unless you agree to more.
A note on cost. Because the tribunal cannot award costs, and because the right to sue is largely removed, the economics of injury work change after 2027. Some firms may no longer be able to offer free consultations or work on contingency for benefits disputes. That is one of the access-to-justice consequences of this change that the government has not addressed.
Talk to an experienced Edmonton injury lawyer. Your consultation is free. Call (780) 760-4878 (HURT) or request a free consultation.
Catastrophic injuries — such as serious brain or spinal cord injuries, or amputations — receive the highest scheduled benefits: unlimited treatment that supports recovery, a permanent impairment lump sum up to about $298,520, and income replacement up to $125,000 per year.
Two cautions. The government’s use of “up to” does not mean you will receive that amount. And neither figure appears anywhere in the legislation — both are set by the Minister and can be changed without a new regulation and without a vote in the Legislature.
“Catastrophic” is also a narrower category than the word suggests. The regulation sets thresholds. Paraplegia or quadriplegia must be classified Grade A or B on the ASIA impairment scale and reach 65%. Loss of vision must reach 80%. An alteration of brain function must reach 50%. Amputation qualifies only where two or more of the listed amputations have occurred — a single above-knee amputation does not meet the definition on its own.
The ASIA impairment scale is a standard five-grade system published by the American Spinal Injury Association, used worldwide to classify how complete a spinal cord injury is. Grade A means no movement or sensation is preserved below the level of injury. Grade B means some sensation remains but no movement. Grades C, D, and E describe progressively greater preserved movement. Only the two most severe grades meet Alberta’s catastrophic threshold, and even then only if the percentage calculation also reaches 65%.
Importantly, a catastrophic injury does not, by itself, restore the right to sue; that exception depends on the at-fault driver’s conduct, not the severity of your injury. (See the FAQ Will I still be able to sue the driver who hurt me after 2027?)
Three things are worth understanding about that.
First, it is the opposite of what you might expect. The formula is now law, in exhaustive detail. The dollar figures are not in the regulation at all — they are “the amount established by the Minister.” The number the government advertises today can be changed by a minister tomorrow, without a new regulation and without a vote in the Legislature.
Second, several serious injuries do not simply add up. The regulation combines multiple impairments by a method that is not straight addition, so a person with several injuries is generally credited with less than the sum of the parts.
Third, a percentage schedule cannot describe a life. A rating chart can record that a person lost the use of a hand. It cannot record whether that hand belonged to a carpenter, a surgeon, or a pianist. Under the current system, a court hears evidence about what an injury actually did to that particular person, in that particular life. Under Care-First, that evidence has nowhere to go.
Arguably more than before. Under no-fault, your insurer both pays your benefits and decides what you get, and no neutral court reviews most claims. An injury lawyer helps you understand the benefit schedule, challenge denials and cut-offs, and make sure you are not accepting less than the rules allow.
But there is a harder truth underneath the question. Under our current tort system, Alberta injury lawyers can afford to offer a free consultation. That may not be the case under the Care-First system. Contingency fees — no win, no fee — work because a successful claim produces an award. The injury lawyer receives an agreed percentage of that award. Remove the claim, cap the benefits, and forbid the tribunal from awarding costs, and that model largely stops working for benefits disputes. Injured people may instead be asked to pay an injury lawyer up front, at precisely the point in their lives when they can least afford it.
That is a serious access-to-justice problem, and the government has not addressed it. (See Top 5 Reasons to Hire an Injury Lawyer.)
British Columbia moved to a no-fault model in May 2021, and the result is widely cited as a warning: injured people lost the right to sue and, in many cases, access to full compensation. Alberta’s Care-First system shares the same core feature, so BC’s experience is a preview of the trade-off Albertans are being asked to accept.
British Columbia also did something Alberta has not. When BC passed its no-fault legislation, it wrote a mandatory review into the law: an all-party committee of MLAs had to be appointed by May 1, 2026 to examine how the system is actually working, including compensation levels, long-term care, and supports for injured people. That review is under way now, and British Columbians can make submissions to it.
Albertans have not been given the same assurance. We are being moved into a no-fault system without a scheduled, independent look back at whether it delivered what was promised. (See Dangerous New No-fault Scheme: Update.)
Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act
If you’re injured in a motor vehicle accident while working, the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) generally remains your first and primary source of compensation — and Alberta’s move to no-fault (“Care-First”) auto insurance on January 1, 2027 doesn’t change that. Because WCB is itself a mandatory no-fault system for work-related injuries, you cannot be paid twice for the same losses, and you generally cannot sue the at-fault driver for losses WCB covers.
A few key points:
WCB comes first for work injuries. If you were driving in the course of your job — for example, a delivery driver, tradesperson, or travelling sales rep — you report to WCB and claim through that system. WCB pays your medical costs and replaces a portion of your lost income (90% of net earnings) regardless of who was at fault. WCB does not, however, pay for pain and suffering.
No double recovery. You can’t collect twice for the same loss from both WCB and your auto insurer. The Act goes further than that: your auto insurer is not liable to pay you compensation at all if you are entitled to WCB for the same injury — and that applies even if you chose not to claim WCB, or forfeited that claim. Whether the no-fault system will “top up” benefits where WCB pays less than the auto system would is a detail the published regulations do not resolve.
Appeals. A dispute over your WCB entitlement goes through the WCB appeals process. Exactly how that will line up with the no-fault system’s own dispute process is also unresolved.
This is a complex, fact-specific area. If you were hurt in a work-related crash, get advice on which system applies and what you may be entitled to. (See How the Personal Injury Claim Process Works.)
We have followed this change closely. These posts go deeper:
You do not have to take our word for any of this. These are the government’s own documents.
A note on sources. The Automobile Insurance Act is law — it received royal assent on May 15, 2025 and takes effect on January 1, 2027. The detailed rules, however, live in regulations. Those five regulations — numbered 202/2026 through 206/2026 — have now been published by the Alberta King’s Printer and come into force with the Act on January 1, 2027. This page is written from the published text, and every one of those regulations is linked below. Note that several key dollar amounts are not fixed in the regulations at all: they are set by the Minister and can change at any time.
We have opposed no-fault auto insurance in Alberta for years, and we are not finished. The legislation takes effect on January 1, 2027 — until then, it can still be changed.
If you do not want a system that removes your right to hold a dangerous driver accountable, these things make a difference:
For a fuller account of why we oppose this change, read Dangerous New No-fault Auto Insurance Scheme Proposed for Alberta: Update.
Joseph A. Nagy is an Edmonton injury lawyer with more than 22 years of experience, licensed in Alberta and British Columbia. He has litigated at all levels of court up to the Court of Appeal and has handled thousands of motor vehicle injury claims, from minor injuries to catastrophic injuries and fatalities. He recently secured an important medical-records privacy ruling for injured Albertans in Aminzadah v Choukeir, 2026 ABKB 103. Joseph A. Nagy Injury Law is a proud supporter of FAIR Alberta. (See Joseph A. Nagy, Edmonton Injury Lawyer.)
Hurt in a crash? Your consultation is free. Call (780) 760-4878 (HURT) or request a free consultation.
