Forum of Redress (11:IX) - Revision history

LSLAP at 19:22, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:22:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:22, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~July 11, 2024~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 29 August 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}

LSLAP: /* 1. BPCPA s 172 Remedies */

2025-09-09T18:36:36Z

1. BPCPA s 172 Remedies

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:36, 9 September 2025
Line 10:		Line 10:
	=== 1. ''BPCPA'' s 172 Remedies ===		=== 1. ''BPCPA'' s 172 Remedies ===

	In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc15/2011scc15.html?autocompleteStr=2011%20SCC%2015&autocompletePos=1 Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc]'', 2011 SCC 15, the SCC decided that consumers can always bring their action invoking s 172 of the ''BPCPA'' to the ~~supreme court~~, and that this was a statutory right. However, the SCC also stated that the choice to restrict arbitration clauses in consumer contracts is a matter of legislation and the courts must therefore defer. This means that for other claims, whether under other sections of the ''BPCPA'', other statues or common law, arbitration clauses are valid and enforceable unless otherwise restricted.		In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc15/2011scc15.html?autocompleteStr=2011%20SCC%2015&autocompletePos=1 Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc]'', 2011 SCC 15, the SCC decided that consumers can always bring their action invoking s 172 of the ''BPCPA'' to the Supreme Court, and that this was a statutory right. However, the SCC also stated that the choice to restrict arbitration clauses in consumer contracts is a matter of legislation and the courts must therefore defer. This means that for other claims, whether under other sections of the ''BPCPA'', other statues or common law, arbitration clauses are valid and enforceable unless otherwise restricted.

	=== 2. Unconscionability ===		=== 2. Unconscionability ===

LSLAP at 03:28, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T03:28:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:28, 2 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~August 1~~, ~~2023~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 11, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}

Line 8:		Line 8:
	Many consumer contracts have an arbitration clause. This clause means that instead of taking up the issue in court, the issue will be taken up in arbitration. There are, however, instances where an arbitration clause can be unenforceable, and therefore not binding on the consumer.		Many consumer contracts have an arbitration clause. This clause means that instead of taking up the issue in court, the issue will be taken up in arbitration. There are, however, instances where an arbitration clause can be unenforceable, and therefore not binding on the consumer.

	=== 1. BPCPA s 172 Remedies ===		=== 1. ''BPCPA'' s 172 Remedies ===

	In ''Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc.'', 2011 SCC 15, the SCC decided that consumers can always bring their action invoking s 172 of the BPCPA to the supreme court, and that this was a statutory right. However, the SCC also stated that the choice to restrict arbitration clauses in consumer contracts is a matter of legislation and the courts must therefore defer. This means that for other claims, whether under other sections of the BPCPA, other statues or common law, arbitration clauses are valid and enforceable unless otherwise restricted.		In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc15/2011scc15.html?autocompleteStr=2011%20SCC%2015&autocompletePos=1 Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc]'', 2011 SCC 15, the SCC decided that consumers can always bring their action invoking s 172 of the ''BPCPA'' to the supreme court, and that this was a statutory right. However, the SCC also stated that the choice to restrict arbitration clauses in consumer contracts is a matter of legislation and the courts must therefore defer. This means that for other claims, whether under other sections of the ''BPCPA'', other statues or common law, arbitration clauses are valid and enforceable unless otherwise restricted.

	=== 2. Unconscionability ===		=== 2. Unconscionability ===

	On a case-by-case basis, courts will determine if an arbitration clause is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. In ''Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller'', 2020 SCC 16 [''Uber v Heller''], the SCC found the arbitration clause to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. Much like unconscionability in other terms of a contact, the court evaluated two elements to determine unconscionability: whether there is an “inequality of bargaining power and a resulting improvident bargain” (''Uber v Heller'' at para 65). In ''Uber v Heller'', the SCC determined there was an inequality of bargaining power because it was a standard form contract, there was a large disparity in sophistication between the parties, and a person in Heller’s position could not be expected to appreciate the financial and legal implications of the arbitration clause. The SCC also determined that there was an improvident bargain because of the US$14 500 up-front cost of arbitration. Therefore, the term was determined to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.		On a case-by-case basis, courts will determine if an arbitration clause is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2020/2020scc16/2020scc16.html?resultIndex=1 Uber Technologies Inc v Heller]'', 2020 SCC 16 [''Uber v Heller''], the SCC found the arbitration clause to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. Much like unconscionability in other terms of a contact, the court evaluated two elements to determine unconscionability: whether there is an “inequality of bargaining power and a resulting improvident bargain” (''Uber v Heller'' at para 65). In ''Uber v Heller'', the SCC determined there was an inequality of bargaining power because it was a standard form contract, there was a large disparity in sophistication between the parties, and a person in Heller’s position could not be expected to appreciate the financial and legal implications of the arbitration clause. The SCC also determined that there was an improvident bargain because of the US$14 500 up-front cost of arbitration. Therefore, the term was determined to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

	== B. Consumer Protection BC ==		== B. Consumer Protection BC ==
Line 26:		Line 26:
	== D. Class Action ==		== D. Class Action ==

	In many cases, it is not economically justifiable for a consumer to pursue their individual claim through the courts. For example, if their claim is for $100, they may have to spend money and hours of their time to reach a successful outcome at the CRT. For many consumers, this is simply not economical. There is also an issue of risk and competence; there is no guarantee that the time spent will result in a successful claim. Even though the CRT does not allow representation unless they grant permission, in ''The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2575 v. Booth'', 2018 BCSC 1605, the court acknowledged that this does not bar the party from relying on counsel to prepare their submissions and assist, as long as the lawyer does not directly participate. Therefore, even if they are not directly represented, a big corporation keen on protecting their business interests will have access to more resources and legal advice than the average person bringing a claim to the CRT. This may make it difficult for a consumer to be successful, even if they commit a substantial amount of time making their claim.		In many cases, it is not economically justifiable for a consumer to pursue their individual claim through the courts. For example, if their claim is for $100, they may have to spend money and hours of their time to reach a successful outcome at the CRT. For many consumers, this is simply not economical. There is also an issue of risk and competence; there is no guarantee that the time spent will result in a successful claim. Even though the CRT does not allow representation unless they grant permission, in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1605/2018bcsc1605.html?autocompleteStr=2018%20BCSC%201605&autocompletePos=1 The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2575 v Booth]'', 2018 BCSC 1605, rev’d on other grounds 2020 BCCA 153, the court acknowledged that this does not bar the party from relying on counsel to prepare their submissions and assist, as long as the lawyer does not directly participate. Therefore, even if they are not directly represented, a big corporation keen on protecting their business interests will have access to more resources and legal advice than the average person bringing a claim to the CRT. This may make it difficult for a consumer to be successful, even if they commit a substantial amount of time making their claim.

	Class Actions allow claimants to aggregate their individual claims. A lawyer can then represent the whole class, and will often work on a contingency fee arrangement, meaning the lawyer will take a percentage of the awarded amount. This shifts the risk to the lawyer and enables the class to get representation where they might not be able to individually. A representative plaintiff is appointed to act on behalf of the class as a whole. This is typically a member of the class, but there are exceptional circumstances where a person who is not a member of the class can be certified (''Class Proceedings Act'', RSBC 1996, c 50, s 2 (4) [CPA]). Class actions have an application process and either the plaintiff or defendant can apply.		Class Actions allow claimants to aggregate their individual claims. A lawyer can then represent the whole class, and will often work on a contingency fee arrangement, meaning the lawyer will take a percentage of the awarded amount. This shifts the risk to the lawyer and enables the class to get representation where they might not be able to individually. A representative plaintiff is appointed to act on behalf of the class as a whole. This is typically a member of the class, but there are exceptional circumstances where a person who is not a member of the class can be certified (''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96050_01 Class Proceedings Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 50, s 2 (4) [CPA]). Class actions have an application process and either the plaintiff or defendant can apply.

	=== 1. Plaintiff Class Proceeding (CPA s 2) ===		=== 1. Plaintiff Class Proceeding (''CPA'', s 2) ===

	A resident of British Columbia who is a member of the class can commence a proceeding on behalf of the class. They need to appoint a class representative and certify the proceeding as a class proceeding. Refer to CPA s 4 for additional requirements and responsibilities when applying for a class proceeding.		A resident of British Columbia who is a member of the class can commence a proceeding on behalf of the class. They need to appoint a class representative and certify the proceeding as a class proceeding. Refer to ''CPA'', s 4 for additional requirements and responsibilities when applying for a class proceeding.

	=== 2. Class Certification (CPA s 4) ===		=== 2. Class Certification (''CPA'', s 4) ===

	For a proceeding to qualify as a class proceeding, it needs to meet the certification requirements. The pleadings must disclose a cause of action, there must be an identifiable class of 2 or more persons, the claims of the members of the class need to raise common issues, a class proceeding needs to be the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of those common issues, there needs to be a representative who will fairly represent the interests of the class without a conflict of interest, and that representative needs to have produced a workable plan setting out how they will advance the proceeding and notify members of the class. CPA s 4 (2) outlines how to determine if a class action is the preferable procedure, and s 4(3) and s 4.1 lay out multi-jurisdictional considerations. The case ''Gomel v Live Nation Entertainment ~~(Ticketmaster)~~'', 2021 BCSC 699, offers an in-depth example of certification.		For a proceeding to qualify as a class proceeding, it needs to meet the certification requirements. The pleadings must disclose a cause of action, there must be an identifiable class of 2 or more persons, the claims of the members of the class need to raise common issues, a class proceeding needs to be the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of those common issues, there needs to be a representative who will fairly represent the interests of the class without a conflict of interest, and that representative needs to have produced a workable plan setting out how they will advance the proceeding and notify members of the class. ''CPA'', s 4 (2) outlines how to determine if a class action is the preferable procedure, and s 4(3) and s 4.1 lay out multi-jurisdictional considerations. The case ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2021/2021bcsc699/2021bcsc699.html?resultIndex=1 Gomel v Live Nation Entertainment, Inc]'', 2021 BCSC 699, rev’d in part 2023 BCCA 274, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40930 (04 April 2024), offers an in-depth example of certification.


	{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters8-14}}		{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters8-14}}

Clicklaw Editor at 20:31, 29 August 2023

2023-08-29T20:31:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:31, 29 August 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~July 8~~, 2023}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 1, 2023}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}

LSLAP at 19:45, 24 August 2023

2023-08-24T19:45:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 24 August 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 8, ~~2022~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 8, 2023}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}

Clicklaw Editor: /* 2. Class Certification (CPA s 4) */

2022-10-04T21:37:19Z

2. Class Certification (CPA s 4)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 4 October 2022
Line 37:		Line 37:

	For a proceeding to qualify as a class proceeding, it needs to meet the certification requirements. The pleadings must disclose a cause of action, there must be an identifiable class of 2 or more persons, the claims of the members of the class need to raise common issues, a class proceeding needs to be the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of those common issues, there needs to be a representative who will fairly represent the interests of the class without a conflict of interest, and that representative needs to have produced a workable plan setting out how they will advance the proceeding and notify members of the class. CPA s 4 (2) outlines how to determine if a class action is the preferable procedure, and s 4(3) and s 4.1 lay out multi-jurisdictional considerations. The case ''Gomel v Live Nation Entertainment (Ticketmaster)'', 2021 BCSC 699, offers an in-depth example of certification.		For a proceeding to qualify as a class proceeding, it needs to meet the certification requirements. The pleadings must disclose a cause of action, there must be an identifiable class of 2 or more persons, the claims of the members of the class need to raise common issues, a class proceeding needs to be the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of those common issues, there needs to be a representative who will fairly represent the interests of the class without a conflict of interest, and that representative needs to have produced a workable plan setting out how they will advance the proceeding and notify members of the class. CPA s 4 (2) outlines how to determine if a class action is the preferable procedure, and s 4(3) and s 4.1 lay out multi-jurisdictional considerations. The case ''Gomel v Live Nation Entertainment (Ticketmaster)'', 2021 BCSC 699, offers an in-depth example of certification.


	{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters8-14}}		{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters8-14}}

Clicklaw Editor at 19:39, 3 October 2022

2022-10-03T19:39:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:39, 3 October 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~June 22~~, 2022 }}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 8, 2022}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}

LSLAP at 22:34, 17 August 2022

2022-08-17T22:34:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 17 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= June 22, 2022 }}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= June 22, 2022 }}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}

	There are multiple forums through which the client can seek a resolution. Once the client’s issue has been diagnosed legally, it is still necessary for the client to know where and how they can bring their claim. This section will cover the 3 major options and outline the pros and cons of each.		There are multiple forums through which the client can seek a resolution. Once the client’s issue has been diagnosed legally, it is still necessary for the client to know where and how they can bring their claim. This section will cover the 3 major options and outline the pros and cons of each.

LSLAP at 22:34, 17 August 2022

2022-08-17T22:34:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 17 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= June 22, 2022 }}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= June 22, 2022 }}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}

	There are multiple forums through which the client can seek a resolution. Once the client’s issue has been diagnosed legally, it is still necessary for the client to know where and how they can bring their claim. This section will cover the 3 major options and outline the pros and cons of each.		There are multiple forums through which the client can seek a resolution. Once the client’s issue has been diagnosed legally, it is still necessary for the client to know where and how they can bring their claim. This section will cover the 3 major options and outline the pros and cons of each.

LSLAP at 22:34, 17 August 2022

2022-08-17T22:34:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 17 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= June 22, 2022 }}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= June 22, 2022 }}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = consumer}}

	There are multiple forums through which the client can seek a resolution. Once the client’s issue has been diagnosed legally, it is still necessary for the client to know where and how they can bring their claim. This section will cover the 3 major options and outline the pros and cons of each.

	There are multiple forums through which the client can seek a resolution. Once the client’s issue has been diagnosed legally, it is still necessary for the client to know where and how they can bring their claim. This section will cover the 3 major options and outline the pros and cons of each.		There are multiple forums through which the client can seek a resolution. Once the client’s issue has been diagnosed legally, it is still necessary for the client to know where and how they can bring their claim. This section will cover the 3 major options and outline the pros and cons of each.