| Civil Resolution Tribunal | |
| Formed: | 2015 |
| Jurisdiction: | Government of British Columbia |
| Minister1 Name: | Niki Sharma, Attorney General |
| Chief1 Name: | Shelley Lopez |
| Chief1 Position: | Chair |
| Parent Department: | Ministry of Attorney General |
| Website: | https://civilresolutionbc.ca/ |
| Agency Type: | Administrative Tribunal |
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.
The CRT is an administrative tribunal with different legal standards[2] than BC Court Services and court system.
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:
The Tribunal adjudicates some sections of some civil laws, determined within CRTA, for:
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 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.
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.
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]
The design of the quasi-judicial design of the CRT differs from court and has four stages being:
Stage 1 - Apply & Respond - Intake & Solution Explorer
The process begins with the use of the Solution Explorer, an online tool that helps applicants understand their legal options and prepare a Dispute Notice. The applicant then files the Dispute Notice online, detailing the nature of the dispute and the remedy sought.
The respondent is given a specific period to respond to the Dispute Notice. The response can include agreement to the claim, a proposed settlement, or a dispute of the claim.
Parties may counterclaim at this stage by completing an additional dispute application.
Stage 2 – Online Negotiation
The negotiation stage starts after the respondents reply to a claim. If both parties agree, they may enter a negotiation phase using the CRT’s online tools to resolve the dispute amicably. This is a facilitated process aimed at avoiding a more formal resolution.
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
If negotiation is unsuccessful, the dispute moves to facilitation, which includes mediation and the submission of arguments and evidence. Facilitation typically begins with mediation, involving phone calls with a CRT facilitator who discusses the claims with the parties. Communication during facilitation can occur via phone, email, or both. Some communications involve all participants, while others may be between an individual user and the CRT Case Manager. If mediation is unsuccessful, the CRT requires parties to submit evidence for the adjudication stage.
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 a resolution during facilitation, the claim proceeds to adjudication. A tribunal member makes a final decision based on the law, evidence, and arguments from all participants. The process includes:
This preparation is typically done online and in writing, known as a "written hearing." In some cases, the tribunal member may decide on an "oral hearing" by phone or videoconference.
The time to receive a decision depends on the complexity of the case and the workload of the tribunal members, who are assigned based on their expertise and experience. Decisions are peer-reviewed and undergo a quality assurance process before being finalized and published.
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 Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA).
Following the release of a decision, the CRT seeks qualitative feedback from users for performance and academic purposes. This data is also included in the CRT Annual Reports for the fiscal year from April 1 to March 31.
By legislative default (Bill 44), parties are required to self-represent. CRTA section 20 restricts the use of lawyers, except for motor vehicle accident claims, in CRT proceedings. Intimate image claims are expedited. For all other types of claims, it usually takes a few weeks for a tribunal member to review the information, consider the issues, apply the law, and write their decision. Complex claims or multiple claims may take longer.
Participants cannot ask for their decision to be assigned to a specific tribunal member. Tribunal members are independent and appointed based on their qualifications and experience.
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].
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.
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.
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]
CRT publishes annual reports each fiscal year since 2016-17.
Shannon Salter 2015 - 2022
Simmi Sandhu 2022 - 2023
Shelley Lopez 2024 - Present