Difference between revisions of "Choosing the Proper Forum for Small Claims (20:IV)"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
Certain claims must be made through administrative tribunals instead of the courts. See, for example, [[Foreword on Employment Law (9:I) | Chapter 9: Employment Law]], [[Introduction to Workers%27 Compensation (7:I) | Chapter 7: Workers’ Compensation]], [[Introduction to Employment Insurance (8:I) | Chapter 8: Employment Insurance]], [[Introduction to Landlord and Tenant Law (19:I) | Chapter 19: Landlord and Tenant Law]], and [[Governing Legislation and Resources for Human Rights (6:I) | Chapter 6: Human Rights]].  
Certain claims must be made through administrative tribunals instead of the courts. See, for example, [[Foreword on Employment Law (9:I) | Chapter 9: Employment Law]], [[Introduction to Workers%27 Compensation (7:I) | Chapter 7: Workers’ Compensation]], [[Introduction to Employment Insurance (8:I) | Chapter 8: Employment Insurance]], [[Introduction to Landlord and Tenant Law (19:I) | Chapter 19: Landlord and Tenant Law]], and [[Governing Legislation and Resources for Human Rights (6:I) | Chapter 6: Human Rights]].  


In order to bring a claim in British Columbia, the court or tribunal must have territorial jurisdiction. If either the subject matter of the  claim (e.g., the contract or wrongful act) occurred in British Columbia or the Defendant resides or does business in British Columbia, this  may be a sufficient connection for a court or tribunal to assert jurisdiction. It is sometimes unclear whether British Columbia has a sufficient connection to the claim and is the most appropriate forum. If the court’s jurisdiction is not clear, a claimant should obtain legal advice and review applicable case law16.  
In order to bring a claim in British Columbia, the court or tribunal must have territorial jurisdiction. If either the subject matter of the  claim (e.g., the contract or wrongful act) occurred in British Columbia or the Defendant resides or does business in British Columbia, this  may be a sufficient connection for a court or tribunal to assert jurisdiction. It is sometimes unclear whether British Columbia has a sufficient connection to the claim and is the most appropriate forum. If the court’s jurisdiction is not clear, a claimant should obtain legal advice and review applicable case law (See ''DreamBank Online Gifting v BeneFACT Consulting'', 2011 BCPC 459 (CanLII) [DreamBank]; ''Teck Cominco Metals v Lloyds Underwriters'', [2009] 1 SCR 321; ''Purple Echo Productions, Inc. v KCTS Television'', 2008 BCCA 85; ''Jordan v Schatz'', 2000 BCCA 409; ''Tolofson v Jensen'', [1994] 3 SCR 1022).  


Where the dispute is contractual, the existence of a “forum selection clause” may provide further jurisdictional difficulties. Forum selection  clauses require the adjudication of claims in the named jurisdiction. Such clauses will generally be upheld absent a finding of “strong cause”  to hear the matter in the jurisdiction of another court17.  
Where the dispute is contractual, the existence of a “forum selection clause” may provide further jurisdictional difficulties. Forum selection  clauses require the adjudication of claims in the named jurisdiction. Such clauses will generally be upheld absent a finding of “strong cause”  to hear the matter in the jurisdiction of another court (''Borgstrom v Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd.'', 2007 BCCA 263; ''Procon Mining & Tunnelling Ltd. v McNeil'', 2007 BCCA 438).  


== A. Small Claims Court ==
== A. Small Claims Court ==


The Small Claims Court is the civil division of the British Columbia Provincial Court and is designed to accommodate unrepresented parties who do not have legal training. The overriding purpose of the Small Claims Court is to resolve disputes in a “just, speedy, inexpensive, and simple manner.”18 The Court uses simplified forms, procedures, and rules and encourages settlement.  
The Small Claims Court is the civil division of the British Columbia Provincial Court and is designed to accommodate unrepresented parties who do not have legal training. The overriding purpose of the Small Claims Court is to resolve disputes in a “just, speedy, inexpensive, and simple manner.” (''SCA'', s 2). The Court uses simplified forms, procedures, and rules and encourages settlement.  


Small Claims Court is a formal court that applies the law.   Although the procedures and rules of evidence are slightly relaxed in order to make it more accessible to the public, it is significantly more formal and principled than the courts portrayed in television programmes.  
Small Claims Court is a formal court that applies the law. Although the procedures and rules of evidence are slightly relaxed in order to make it more accessible to the public, it is significantly more formal and principled than the courts portrayed in television programmes.  


There are three primary considerations when choosing Small Claims Court: the amount claimed, the court’s jurisdiction, and costs.   
There are three primary considerations when choosing Small Claims Court: the amount claimed, the court’s jurisdiction, and costs.   
Line 19: Line 19:
=== 1. Amount Claimed ===
=== 1. Amount Claimed ===


'''Small Claims Court can award a judgment of up to $25,000.''' A person whose claim exceeds $25,000 may still choose Small Claims Court but must expressly state in the notice of claim or counterclaim that they will abandon the amount necessary to bring their claim or counterclaim  within the court’s jurisdiction19. Interest and costs are not included in calculating the $25,000 limit.  
'''Small Claims Court can award a judgment of up to $25,000.''' A person whose claim exceeds $25,000 may still choose Small Claims Court but must expressly state in the notice of claim or counterclaim that they will abandon the amount necessary to bring their claim or counterclaim  within the court’s jurisdiction (''Rules'' 1(4) and 1(5)). Interest and costs are not included in calculating the $25,000 limit.  


A claimant must sue all responsible parties for damages arising from a single event in '''one''' claim; the claimant cannot split claims for damages arising out of a single event into multiple claims in an attempt to circumvent the $25,000 limit. If, however, there are multiple events giving rise to a claim, even if closely related, they may be brought in separate actions20. For example, if a contractor issues an invoice for $15,000 at the end of January for work done in January and  issues another invoice for $15,000 at the end of February for work done in February and both invoices go unpaid, the contractor may sue on each invoice in a separate claim. Rule 7.1(4) permits certain related claims to be heard together.  
A claimant must sue all responsible parties for damages arising from a single event in '''one''' claim; the claimant cannot split claims for damages arising out of a single event into multiple claims in an attempt to circumvent the $25,000 limit. If, however, there are multiple events giving rise to a claim, even if closely related, they may be brought in separate actions (''Wah Loong Ltd v Fortune Garden Restaurant Ltd.'', 2000 BCPC 163 (CanLII)). For example, if a contractor issues an invoice for $15,000 at the end of January for work done in January and  issues another invoice for $15,000 at the end of February for work done in February and both invoices go unpaid, the contractor may sue on each invoice in a separate claim. Rule 7.1(4) permits certain related claims to be heard together.  


Where a defendant has pleaded a set-off (the plaintiff owes the defendant money that should be deducted from their award), contributory  negligence (the plaintiff’s negligence also contributed to their loss), or shared liability (there is another party who is also liable fo the same action), the court may consider these defences against the full amount of the claimant’s claim provided that the net judgment does not exceed $25,000. This also applies when a set-off forms the basis for a standalone counterclaim. For example, if the claimant proves a $50,000  claim and the defendant establishes a $25,000 set-off, the claimant will have a net judgment of $25,000. The SCA21 permits the monetary limit to be set by regulation at any amount up to $50,000. Claimants should confirm the current monetary limit prior to filing a claim.  
Where a defendant has pleaded a set-off (the plaintiff owes the defendant money that should be deducted from their award), contributory  negligence (the plaintiff’s negligence also contributed to their loss), or shared liability (there is another party who is also liable for the same action), the court may consider these defences against the full amount of the claimant’s claim provided that the net judgment does not exceed $25,000. This also applies when a set-off forms the basis for a standalone counterclaim. For example, if the claimant proves a $50,000  claim and the defendant establishes a $25,000 set-off, the claimant will have a net judgment of $25,000. ''SCA'', s 21(2) permits the monetary limit to be set by regulation at any amount up to $50,000. Claimants should confirm the current monetary limit prior to filing a claim.  


=== 2. Jurisdiction ===
=== 2. Jurisdiction ===


The Small Claims Court derives its authority from the SCA, the ''Small Claims Rules'', BC Reg 261/93 [SCR], and other acts that expressly confer jurisdiction upon the Provincial Court.  
The Small Claims Court derives its authority from the SCA, the ''Small Claims Rules'', BC Reg 261/93 [SCR], and other acts that expressly confer jurisdiction upon the Provincial Court.  


The court has express jurisdiction in claims for:  
The court has express jurisdiction in claims for:  
Line 35: Line 35:
*relief from opposing claims to personal property.  
*relief from opposing claims to personal property.  


The court does not have jurisdiction in claims for libel, slander, or malicious prosecution unless such authority is expressly granted in limited circumstances by another statute (e.g., s-s  171(3) of the ''Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act'' allows for contraventions  of this act to be heard in Provincial Court even if they involve claims for libel or slander22).
The court does not have jurisdiction in claims for libel, slander, or malicious prosecution unless such authority is expressly granted in limited circumstances by another statute (e.g., s-s  171(3) of the ''Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act'' allows for contraventions  of this act to be heard in Provincial Court even if they involve claims for libel or slander (''Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act'', SBC 2004, c 2, s 171(3))).


The court cannot resolve disputes involving residential tenancy agreements nor can it grant remedies created by statute if there is another  dispute resolution mechanism prescribed in the statute.   For example, claims for overtime must be claimed through the Employment Standards Branch and not in Small Claims Court. The court has very limited jurisdiction in residential tenancy23, employment24, human rights25, and strata property26 matters.  
The court cannot resolve disputes involving residential tenancy agreements nor can it grant remedies created by statute if there is another  dispute resolution mechanism prescribed in the statute. For example, claims for overtime must be claimed through the Employment Standards Branch and not in Small Claims Court. The court has very limited jurisdiction in residential tenancy (''Residential Tenancy Act'', SBC 2002, c 78), employment (''Employment Standards Act'', RSBC 1996, c 113; ''Macaraeg v E. Care Contact Centers Ltd.'', [2008] BCCA 182; ''UBC v Moore'', 2009, BCPC 186), human rights (''Human Rights Code'', RSBC 1996, c 210), and strata property matters (''Strata Property Act'', SBC 1998, c 43; ''Frechette and Meagher v Crosby Property et al'', 2007 BCPC 174 (CanLII); ''Stettner v The Owners'', Strata Plan PG 56, 2011 BCPC 82 (CanLII); ''Valana v Law et al'', 2005 BCPC 587 (CanLII); ''Heliker et al v Strata Plan VR 1395'', 2005 BCPC 500 (CanLII); ''David v Vancouver Condominium Services Ltd.'', [1999] BCJ No 1869; ''McNeill v Strata Plan – KAS1099'', [1996] BCJ No. 2553; ''Strata Plan LMS2064 v Biamonte'', [1999] BCJ No. 1267; ''Seller v Singla Bros. Holdings Ltd'', [1995] BCJ No. 2826; ''Beck v Andrews Realty Ltd. (cob RE/Max Real Estate Services)'', [1994] BCJ No 2796).  


Other  noteworthy  areas  of  law  often  falling  outside  the jurisdiction  of  the  Small  Claims Division are divorce, trusts, wills (i.e., probate), prerogative writs, and bankruptcy. However, the  court  may  have  jurisdiction  over  cases  where  these areas  of  law  are  involved  only circumstantially –  where  the  pith  and  substance  of  the  case  does  fall  within  the  court’s jurisdiction27.    In ''AMEX  Bank  of  Canada  v  Golovatcheva'',  the  claimant  alleged  that  the defendant  had  committed  fraud  by  running  up  a  debt  that  she  knew  she  would  escape  by declaring bankruptcy.  The Small Claims court exerted jurisdiction over the issue of fraud.  
Other  noteworthy  areas  of  law  often  falling  outside  the jurisdiction  of  the  Small  Claims Division are divorce, trusts, wills (i.e., probate), prerogative writs, and bankruptcy. However, the  court  may  have  jurisdiction  over  cases  where  these areas  of  law  are  involved  only circumstantially –  where  the  pith  and  substance  of  the  case  does  fall  within  the  court’s jurisdiction27.    In ''AMEX  Bank  of  Canada  v  Golovatcheva'',  the  claimant  alleged  that  the defendant  had  committed  fraud  by  running  up  a  debt  that  she  knew  she  would  escape  by declaring bankruptcy.  The Small Claims court exerted jurisdiction over the issue of fraud.  

Navigation menu