5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Small Claims Appeals (20:XVI)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Small Claims Appeals (20:XVI) (view source)
Revision as of 21:17, 8 September 2023
, 21:17, 8 September 2023added explanation of Standard of Review
(added explanation of Standard of Review) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= | {{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= September 8, 2023}} | ||
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = smallclaims}} | {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = smallclaims}} | ||
== A. CRT Small Claims Decisions and Appeals == | == A. CRT Small Claims Decisions and Appeals == | ||
A party who is dissatisfied with a ruling can seek judicial review in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The standard of review is variable because courts have struggled with the interpretation of s 58 of the Administrative Tribunals Act | A party who is dissatisfied with a ruling can seek judicial review in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. There are various standards of review applicable to different cases (standard of review refers to the level of scrutiny a reviewing court will apply to a decision). The standard of review is variable because courts have struggled with the interpretation of s 58 of the ''Administrative Tribunals Act''. For example, BCSC has ruled that the standard of review for CRT decisions on strata property matters is patent unreasonableness (''The Owners, Strata Plan VR320 v. Day'', 2023 BCSC 364). The Supreme Court of Canada has defined this to apply to decisions that “contain an immediately obvious defect, which is “so flawed that no amount of curial deference can justify letting it stand” and almost borders on the absurd (''Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan'', 2003 SCC 20 at para. 52). However, generally speaking, the standard of review for CRT decisions is correctness, unless the issue under review relates to: | ||
* findings of fact | * findings of fact, in which case the finding must either be unreasonable or made without any evidence to support it in order for a reviewing court to reverse it. In such cases, the reviewing court may remit the decision back to the CRT or replace it with the court’s own decision; | ||
* discretionary decisions | * discretionary decisions, in which case the decision must be arbitrary, made in bad faith, be based entirely or predominantly on irrelevant factors, or fail to comply with a statute in order for a reviewing court to reverse it; or | ||
* natural justice and procedural fairness which are considered with the tribunal’s mandate in mind (Administrative Tribunals Act, SBC 2004, c 45, s 58(2)).C | * natural justice and procedural fairness which are considered with the tribunal’s mandate in mind (Administrative Tribunals Act, SBC 2004, c 45, s 58(2)).C | ||
