Civil Resolution Tribunal

Last updated
Civil Resolution Tribunal
BC Civil Resolution Tribunal.jpg
Agency overview
Formed2015
TypeAdministrative Tribunal
JurisdictionGovernment of British Columbia
Minister responsible
Agency executive
  • Shelley Lopez, Acting Chair
Parent departmentMinistry of Attorney General
Website https://civilresolutionbc.ca/

The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) is Canada's first online tribunal, [1] located in British Columbia (BC), Canada created under a Provincial statute. It is one of the first examples in the world of online dispute resolution (ODR) being incorporated into the public justice system.

Contents

The CRT is an administrative tribunal with different legal standards [2] than BC Court Services and court system.

History

The CRT was established as a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal under the CRTA which came into force March 15, 2013. The CRT was established under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (2012), which was amended in 2015. [3] The Tribunal commenced public operations on July 13, 2016.

The CRT initially only had jurisdiction over small claims and strata property (condominium) disputes with a limited cost cap. The BC Government through the Strata Property Act (SPA) enables any private land owner to create a strata, which can be single family, duplex, triplex, multi-residential dwellings and also commercial properties such as stores, restaurants, airports, marinas, golf courses, fractional vacation properties, etc. Strata corporations are unlimited liability corporations with no shareholders.

On April 23, 2018, the government of British Columbia introduced legislation to expand the CRT's jurisdiction to include certain motor vehicle accident disputes, disputes for some sections of the Societies Act, and the Co-operative Association Act.

The CRT was subsequently was expanded through varied enactments and includes small, large and complex claims for varied civil matters. The CRT now adjudicates claims for six statutes. However, CRTA s. 117 also enables the CRT to be delegated other enactments and on its website it includes the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

The May 7, [4] 8 [5] and 30, [6] 2012 Hansard records show the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA) was introduced and passed to provide an informal justice option for minor disputes as part of the Government’s justice reform initiative, with a mandate reported to be to provide a more accessible justice system.

The Tribunal derives its powers from statute rather than the inherent jurisdiction of the courts, and initially was intended to enable the use of digital technology to resolve some minor civil disputes starting with sections of law for stratas.

On May 31, 2012 Bill 44 was given Royal Assent establishing the CRTA, which enabling the creation of the CRT. The enactments in effect for the CRT are:

  1. 2012 BILL 44, Civil Resolution Tribunal Act
  2. 2018 Bill 22, Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act
  3. 2021 Bill 21, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2)
  4. 2022 Bill 9, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act

The Tribunal adjudicates some sections of some civil laws, determined within CRTA, for:

  1. Small Claims Act
  2. Strata Property Act, Strata Property Regulation and Bare Land Strata Regulation
  3. Cooperative Association Act
  4. Societies Act
  5. Insurance (Vehicle) Act and Accident Claims Regulation
  6. 2023 Bill 12, The Intimate Images Protection Act

CRT Rules

The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) operates independently, establishing its own rules rather than being dictated by governmental mandates. These rules function akin to an instructional manual, facilitating fairness, transparency, and consistency within the tribunal's operations.

As part of its commitment to upholding these principles, the CRT undertakes regular reviews and updates of its regulations. This ensures that the rules remain clear, coherent, and equitable for all parties involved in dispute resolution processes. [7]

Standard Rules

Standard Rules apply to all types of CRT disputes other than certain types of claims under the Intimate Images Protection Act. From 2016 to February 2024 the CRT changed its rules sixteen times.

The Intimate Image Protection Order Rules

As of February 2024 the CRT established a second set of rules for the Intimate Image Protection Act, while the other components are under the CRT Standard Rules.

Dispute Resolution Process

The CRT provides the public with access to interactive information pathways, tools, and a variety of dispute resolution methods including negotiation, facilitation and, if necessary, adjudication. Participants are to use these justice services from a computer or mobile device. For those who are unable or unwilling to use technology to resolve their dispute, the tribunal provides paper-based or telephone-based services. [8]

CRT Design - Stages 1 to 4

The design of the quasi-judicial design of the CRT differs from court and has four stages being:

  1. Solution Explorer - make or respond to a claim.
  2. Online Negotiation with participating parties.
  3. Facilitation with CRT staff.
  4. Adjudication.

Stage 1 - Apply & Respond - Solution Explorer & Dispute Notice Application

Stage 1 of the design is the online Solution Explorer, which all users must use. CRT counts each use as a positive data set and reuses it as a performance measure.

At the end of stage 1 users are taken to the legal application process called Dispute Notice. The final Dispute Notice Claim statement functions as a legal application and is based on CRT instruction.

Parties may counterclaim at this stage by completing an additional Dispute Notice.

Stage 2 – Online Negotiation

The negotiation stage starts after the respondents reply to a claim. If users do not reach an agreement during the negotiation stage a CRT case manager contacts them to begin the facilitation stage.

Stage 3 - Facilitation inclusive of Mediation, and Arguments and Evidence Submissions

Stage 3 has multiple activities beginning with mediation, which is generally one phone call with a CRT staff person called a Facilitator about the claim/s. The timing is strictly limited and differs from dispute resolution norms and jurisprudence. Facilitation is by phone, email or both. Some communications are done with all participants, and others only be between a user and the CRT Case Manager.

If unsuccessful CRT requires parties to submit evidence for the adjudication stage. This is done two-weeks prior to their argument (legal summary).

A claimant then submits a written argument through a digital portal with character restrictions. Two weeks later the respondent replies, and then one week later the claimant provides a final response unless the CRT allows extensions.

The CRT also does not action penalties or its summons powers. In the case of penalties, it informs users that the CRT penalties must be initiated through an Offence Act claim by police or on their own. This process is external of the CRT.

Stage 4 - Adjudication, CRT Decision and Feedback

If the parties are unable to reach resolution a claim proceeds to adjudication.

Parties who disagree with a CRT final decision can petition the BC Supreme Court for judicial review with the standard of review set within the CRTA.

Following the release of a decision the CRT seeks qualitative feedback from users. It uses the response for performance and academic purposes. This data is also used in the CRT Annual Reports for April 1 to March 31 fiscal years.

By legislative default Bill 44 requires parties to self-represent. CRTA section 20 restricts the use of lawyers, other than motor vehicle accident claims, in CRT proceedings.

Administration of Justice

The CRTA establishes the standards for both the administration of justice and some sections of some civil laws delegated to it. The CRTA also delegates the CRT the power to interpret laws and regulations for several sections of laws delegated to it, which differs from the regular courts.

As the tribunal created under an administrative law the CRT has not endorsed or incorporated the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons established by the Canadian Judicial Council, while the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the Principles in Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23 [2017] 1 SCR 470.

CRT Vice-Chair Escalations

In November 2022, the BC Government and CRT created and filled the Vice-Chair Escalations position. The Vice-Chair Escalations performs an adjudicative and dispute resolution function within the tribunal. The position receives escalations and decides on interim applications on all disputes.

Enforcement

Under section 57 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA), a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Supreme Court of British Columbia if it is an order for financial compensation or return of personal property over $35,000. [9] Under section 58 of the CRTA, the order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia if it is an order for financial compensation or return of personal property under $35,000. [10] Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the court that it is filed in. [11]

Enforcement of equitable or large claims requires a British Columbia Supreme Court contempt of court claim, which has strict legal standards to be successful. The burden of costs and proof is on the claimant.

Judicial Review

Pursuant to section 56.6 of the CRTA, a party may only petition the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a judicial review of a CRT decision. A petition must commence within 60 days from the date of a CRT decision. [12] In a judicial review, the remedies a court can give are restricted. The court generally determines whether the tribunal had the authority to make a particular decision and whether the tribunal exercised that authority. [13]

The Supreme Court will not interfere with the CRT Decision unless the Decision is patently unreasonable. [14] The courts hold that, "Even if the court considers parts of the tribunal’s rationale to be flawed or unreasonable, so long as the decision as a whole is reasonable, no patent unreasonableness can be found." [15]

Annual Reports

CRT publishes annual reports each fiscal year since 2016-17.

Chairs

Shannon Salter 2015

Simmi Sandhu 2022

Related Research Articles

Dispute resolution or dispute settlement is the process of resolving disputes between parties. The term dispute resolution is sometimes used interchangeably with conflict resolution.

In Canadian law, patently unreasonable or the patent unreasonableness test was a standard of review used by a court when performing judicial review of administrative decisions. It was the highest of three standards of review: correctness, unreasonableness, and patent unreasonableness. Although the term "patent unreasonableness" lacked a precise definition in the common law, it was somewhere above unreasonableness, and consequently it was relatively difficult to show that a decision was patently unreasonable. A simple example of a patently unreasonable decision may be one that does not accord at all with the facts or law before it, or one that completely misstates a legal test.

In common law systems, a superior court is a court of general jurisdiction over civil and criminal legal cases. A superior court is "superior" in relation to a court with limited jurisdiction, which is restricted to civil cases involving monetary amounts with a specific limit, or criminal cases involving offenses of a less serious nature. A superior court may hear appeals from lower courts. For courts of general jurisdiction in civil law system, see ordinary court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribunal</span> Person or institution with the authority to judge, adjudicate or determine claims or disputes

A tribunal, generally, is any person or institution with authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title. For example, an advocate who appears before a court with a single judge could describe that judge as "their tribunal." Many governmental bodies are titled "tribunals" to emphasize that they are not courts of normal jurisdiction. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was a body specially constituted under international law; in Great Britain, employment tribunals are bodies set up to hear specific employment disputes. In many cases, the word tribunal implies a judicial body with a lesser degree of formality than a court, in which the normal rules of evidence and procedure may not apply, and whose presiding officers are frequently neither judges nor magistrates. Private judicial bodies are also often styled "tribunals." The word tribunal, however, is not conclusive of a body's function—for example, in Great Britain, the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a superior court of record.

Small-claims courts have limited jurisdiction to hear civil cases between private litigants. Courts authorized to try small claims may also have other judicial functions, and go by different names in different jurisdictions. For example, it may be known as a county or magistrate's court. These courts can be found in Australia, Brazil, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Greece, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Nigeria and the United States.

The court system of Canada is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. In the courts, the judiciary interpret and apply the law of Canada. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Hong Kong</span> Law courts in the special administrative region of China

The Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is the judicial branch of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Under the Basic Law of Hong Kong, it exercises the judicial power of the Region and is independent of the executive and legislative branches of the Government. The courts in Hong Kong hear and adjudicate all prosecutions and civil disputes, including all public and private law matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of British Columbia</span> Superior trial court of British Columbia, Canada

The Supreme Court of British Columbia is the superior trial court for the province of British Columbia, Canada. The Court hears civil and criminal law cases as well as appeals from the Provincial Court of British Columbia. There are 90 judicial positions on the Court in addition to supernumerary judges, making for a grand total of 108 judges. There are also 13 Supreme Court masters, who hear and dispose of a wide variety of applications in chambers.

Federal tribunals in the United States are those tribunals established by the federal government of the United States for the purpose of resolving disputes involving or arising under federal laws, including questions about the constitutionality of such laws. Such tribunals include both Article III tribunals as well as adjudicative entities which are classified as Article I or Article IV tribunals. Some of the latter entities are also formally denominated as courts, but they do not enjoy certain protections afforded to Article III courts. These tribunals are described in reference to the article of the United States Constitution from which the tribunal's authority stems. The use of the term "tribunal" in this context as a blanket term to encompass both courts and other adjudicative entities comes from section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held an administrative agency may, in some cases, exert jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A Supreme Court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction, however, this is typically limited to constitutional law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arbitration</span> Method of dispute resolution

Arbitration is a formal method of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) involving a neutral third party who makes a binding decision. The dispute will be decided by one or more persons, which renders the 'arbitration award'. An arbitration decision or award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts, unless all parties stipulate that the arbitration process and decision are non-binding.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Israeli law</span> Overall legal system of the State of Israel

Israeli law is based mostly on a common law legal system, though it also reflects the diverse history of the territory of the State of Israel throughout the last hundred years, as well as the legal systems of its major religious communities. The Israeli legal system is based on common law, which also incorporates facets of civil law. The Israeli Declaration of Independence asserted that a formal constitution would be written, though it has been continuously postponed since 1950. Instead, the Basic Laws of Israel function as the country's constitutional laws. Statutes enacted by the Knesset, particularly the Basic Laws, provide a framework which is enriched by political precedent and jurisprudence. Foreign and historical influences on modern-day Israeli law are varied and include the Mecelle and German civil law, religious law, and British common law. The Israeli courts have been influenced in recent years by American Law and Canadian Law and to a lesser extent by Continental Law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Canada</span>

Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.

<i>Paul v British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Paul v British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), 2003 SCC 55, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law and aboriginal law. The case stands for the proposition that a provincial administrative actor granted the power to determine questions of law may adjudicate matters within federal legislative competence, including s. 35 aboriginal rights matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Italy</span> Overview of Italian judiciary

The judiciary of Italy is composed of courts responsible for interpreting and applying the law in the Italian Republic. Magistracy is a public office, accessible only to Italian citizens who hold an Italian Juris Doctor and have successfully participated in the relevant competitive public examination organised by the Ministry of justice. The judicial power is independent and there is no internal hierarchy within. Italian magistrates are either judges or public prosecutors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of The Bahamas</span>

The basis of the Bahamian Law and legal system lies within the English Common Law tradition. Justices of the Supreme Court, Registrars and Magistrates are all appointed by The Governor-General acting on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, which is composed of five individuals who are headed by the Chief Justice as their chairman. The Chief Justice and the Justices of the Court of Appeal, including the President, are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Once appointed, the salaries and other terms of appointment of the Chief Justice, Justices of Appeal and Justices of the Supreme Court cannot be altered to their disadvantage. Justices of the Supreme Court can serve until the age of 65 years and, where agreed among the judge, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, may serve until the age of 67. Justices of Appeal can serve until the age of 68 years and, where agreed among the judge, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, may serve until the age of 70 years. The law of The Bahamas makes provisions for the appointment of 12 Justices to the Bench of the Supreme Court, inclusive of the Chief Justice, and for five Justices of the Court of Appeal, inclusive of the President. The Chief Justice, as Head of the Judiciary, is an ex officio member of the Court of Appeal, but only sits at the invitation of the President.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Namibia</span>

The judiciary of Namibia consists of a three-tiered set of courts, the Lower, High and Supreme Courts. Parallel to this structure there are traditional courts dealing with minor matters and applying customary law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Cyprus</span>

The law of Cyprus is a legal system which applies within the Republic of Cyprus. Although Cypriot law is extensively codified, it is still heavily based on English common law in the sense that the fundamental principle of precedent applies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">King's Bench Division</span> Division of the English High Court of Justice

The King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice deals with a wide range of common law cases and has supervisory responsibility over certain lower courts.

References

  1. "About the CRT - Civil Resolution Tribunal". Civil Resolution Tribunal. Retrieved 2018-05-08.
  2. CBA (October 9, 2020). "Taking Justice Online: Does B.C.'s CRT Provide a Model – Or a Lesson?". Canadian Bar Association.
  3. "Civil Resolution Tribunal Act". British Columbia. Retrieved 25 February 2017.
  4. Hansard. "2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament Hansard". Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Legislative Assembly Hansard Services.
  5. Hansard (May 8, 2012). "2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament Hansard". Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Legislative Assembly Hansard Services.
  6. Hansard (May 30, 2012). "2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament Hansard". Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Victoria: Legislative Assembly Hansard Services.
  7. CRT. "CRT Rules". Civil Resolution Tribunal. CRT. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
  8. Salter, Shannon (2017-12-05). "ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND JUSTICE SYSTEM INTEGRATION: BRITISH COLUMBIA'S CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL". Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice. 34 (1): 112–129. doi: 10.22329/wyaj.v34i1.5008 . ISSN   2561-5017.
  9. "Sec. 57 of The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act". Canadian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  10. "Day v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 320". Canadian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  11. "See for example par. 48 in Day v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 320". Civil Resolution Tribunal. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  12. "Sec. 56.6 of The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act". Canadian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  13. "A Guidebook to Judicial Review" (PDF). Supreme Court of British Columbia. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  14. "The Owners, Strata Plan VR320 v Day, 2023 Supreme Court of BC 364". Supreme Court of British Columbia. Retrieved 15 March 2023.
  15. The Owners, Strata Plan VR320 v Day, 2023 BCSC 364 (CanLII), at par. 20 <https://canlii.ca/t/jw4w0>, retrieved on 2023-03-26