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

In small claims disputes, the tribunal will provide the final decision by the date communicated by case manager to the parties, and provide any orders resolving the dispute after the time for filing a Notice of Objection has passed and only if no objection has been made. The tribunal Chair may extend the time allowed for providing a final decision and orders resolving the dispute but will notify the parties of that change. A final decision or order can include an order for a party to pay money, an order requiring a party to do or stop doing something, and any order, terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate. The tribunal may make an award of expenses but not for legal costs.   The tribunal’s decisions will be binding and may be enforceable as court orders once they are filed with either the BC Provincial Court or BC Supreme Court.

To object to a tribunal small claims decision, including a default decision, a party must within 28 days of receiving a Notice of Final Decision, submit a completed Notice of Objection Form to the tribunal and pay the required fee (s. 56.1 of the CRTA). Once a Notice of Objection Form has been submitted, the tribunal will provide the parties with a copy of the Notice of Objection Form and a Certificate of Completion indicating that the parties have completed the tribunal’s process. The CRT cannot issue an order in a small claims dispute until the deadline for filing a Notice of Objection expires. The Notice of Objection Form can be found at the following link: https://civilresolutionbc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FORM-Notice-of-Objection-June-6-2017.pdf.

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 (SCA, 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 his/her 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 - Small Claims Act SCA, s 10).

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 "0763486 BCLtd. v Landmark Realty Corp'', 2009 BCSC 810 (CanLII); ''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.

If an order dismissing a claim is appealed to the Supreme Court, that appeal does not automatically appeal the counterclaim to the Supreme  Court, nor vice versa. Each appeal is a separate matter and needs to be filed separately in the Supreme Court. Both appeals will, of course, be heard together. (See ''Shaughnessy v Roth'', 2006 BCSC 531 (CanLII)).