Difference between revisions of "Small Claims Appeals (20:XVI)"

Line 10:

== B. Appealing from Small Claims Court ==

Any party to a proceeding may appeal to the Supreme Court an order to allow or dismiss a claim if the judge made the order after a trial (SCA, s 5). An appeal must be started within 40 days, beginning on the day after the order of the Provincial Court is made (SCA, s 6). A review of the order under appeal may be on questions of fact or law ('Small Claims Act'' [SCA], RSBC 1996, c 430, s 12(a)). A mistake of fact could involve a misunderstanding by the Judge of evidence given by a witness. For example, if a witness reported that a particular event happened and in the decision the Judge bases their decision on the fact that event didn’t happen, there could be a basis for an appeal. A mistake of law occurs where the Judge makes an error in deciding which law should apply. Not every error made by a Small Claims Court judge will be the basis for a successful appeal. The test which the Supreme Court Judge must apply is called the “clearly wrong test”. If the Small Claims Court judge’s decision about the facts or the law is not clearly wrong, the appeal will fail. An appeal is usually not a new trial; it will be based on the transcripts of the trial in Small Claims Court. The Supreme Court may, however, exercise its discretion to hear the appeal as a new trial (SCA, s 12(b)). No new evidence may be adduced at the appeal without leave of the court. (See Practice Direction: Standard Directions for Appeals from Provincial Court; SCA , s 12).

Any party to a proceeding may appeal to the Supreme Court an order to allow or dismiss a claim if the judge made the order after a trial (SCA, s 5). An appeal must be started within 40 days, beginning on the day after the order of the Provincial Court is made (SCA, s 6). A review of the order under appeal may be on questions of fact or law (''Small Claims Act'' [SCA], RSBC 1996, c 430, s 12(a)). A mistake of fact could involve a misunderstanding by the Judge of evidence given by a witness. For example, if a witness reported that a particular event happened and in the decision the Judge bases their decision on the fact that event didn’t happen, there could be a basis for an appeal. A mistake of law occurs where the Judge makes an error in deciding which law should apply. Not every error made by a Small Claims Court judge will be the basis for a successful appeal. The test which the Supreme Court Judge must apply is called the “clearly wrong test”. If the Small Claims Court judge’s decision about the facts or the law is not clearly wrong, the appeal will fail. An appeal is usually not a new trial; it will be based on the transcripts of the trial in Small Claims Court. The Supreme Court may, however, exercise its discretion to hear the appeal as a new trial (SCA, s 12(b)). No new evidence may be adduced at the appeal without leave of the court. (See Practice Direction: Standard Directions for Appeals from Provincial Court; SCA , s 12).

For claims that do not fit the criteria for an appeal, the ''Judicial Review Procedure Act'', RSBC 1996, c 241, allows the Supreme Court of British Columbia to review decisions made by Provincial Court judges prior to trial. This includes interlocutory orders, the dismissal of a claim at a settlement conference, and adjudicator decisions in Simplified Trials under Rule 9.1. The appropriate standard of review for orders subject to judicial review is reasonableness. (See ''[http://canlii.ca/t/242ln 0763486 BC Ltd. v Landmark Realty Corp]'', 2009 BCSC 810 (CanLII); ''[http://canlii.ca/t/52tl Wood and Lauder v Siwak]'', 2000 BCSC 397 (CanLII); ''Der v Giles'', [2003] BCJ No 938; and ''Nicholson v Lum'', [1996] BCJ No 860). For further information on judicial review, see Chapter 5: Public Complaints.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 == B. Appealing from Small Claims Court ==
-Any party to a proceeding may appeal to the Supreme Court an order to allow or dismiss a claim if the judge made the order after a trial (SCA, s 5). An appeal must be started within 40 days, beginning on the day after the order of the Provincial Court is made (SCA, s 6). A review of  the order under appeal may be on questions of fact or law ('Small Claims Act'' [SCA], RSBC 1996, c 430, s 12(a)). A mistake of fact could involve a misunderstanding by the Judge of evidence given by a witness. For example, if a witness reported that a particular event happened and in the decision the Judge bases their decision on the fact that event didn’t happen, there could be a basis for an appeal. A mistake of law occurs where the Judge makes an error in deciding which law should apply. Not every error made by a Small Claims Court judge will be the basis for a successful appeal. The test which  the Supreme Court Judge must apply is called the “clearly wrong test”. If the Small Claims Court judge’s decision about the facts or the law  is not clearly wrong, the appeal will fail. An appeal is usually not a new trial; it will be based on the transcripts of the trial in Small Claims Court. The Supreme Court may, however, exercise its discretion to hear the appeal as a new trial (SCA, s 12(b)). No new evidence may be adduced at the appeal without leave of the court. (See Practice Direction: Standard Directions for Appeals from Provincial Court; SCA , s 12).
+Any party to a proceeding may appeal to the Supreme Court an order to allow or dismiss a claim if the judge made the order after a trial (SCA, s 5). An appeal must be started within 40 days, beginning on the day after the order of the Provincial Court is made (SCA, s 6). A review of  the order under appeal may be on questions of fact or law (''Small Claims Act'' [SCA], RSBC 1996, c 430, s 12(a)). A mistake of fact could involve a misunderstanding by the Judge of evidence given by a witness. For example, if a witness reported that a particular event happened and in the decision the Judge bases their decision on the fact that event didn’t happen, there could be a basis for an appeal. A mistake of law occurs where the Judge makes an error in deciding which law should apply. Not every error made by a Small Claims Court judge will be the basis for a successful appeal. The test which  the Supreme Court Judge must apply is called the “clearly wrong test”. If the Small Claims Court judge’s decision about the facts or the law  is not clearly wrong, the appeal will fail. An appeal is usually not a new trial; it will be based on the transcripts of the trial in Small Claims Court. The Supreme Court may, however, exercise its discretion to hear the appeal as a new trial (SCA, s 12(b)). No new evidence may be adduced at the appeal without leave of the court. (See Practice Direction: Standard Directions for Appeals from Provincial Court; SCA , s 12).
 For claims that do not fit the criteria for an appeal, the ''Judicial Review Procedure Act'', RSBC 1996, c 241, allows the Supreme Court of British Columbia to  review decisions made by Provincial Court judges prior to trial. This includes interlocutory orders, the dismissal of a claim at a settlement conference, and adjudicator decisions in Simplified Trials under Rule 9.1. The appropriate standard of review for orders subject to judicial  review is reasonableness. (See ''[http://canlii.ca/t/242ln 0763486 BC Ltd. v Landmark Realty Corp]'', 2009 BCSC 810 (CanLII); ''[http://canlii.ca/t/52tl Wood and Lauder v Siwak]'', 2000 BCSC 397 (CanLII); ''Der v Giles'', [2003] BCJ No 938; and ''Nicholson v Lum'', [1996] BCJ No 860). For further information on judicial review, see Chapter 5: Public Complaints.

Difference between revisions of "Small Claims Appeals (20:XVI)"

Navigation menu

Search