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

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.  

The Small Claims Court has limited inherent jurisdiction.   It cannot grant injunctions nor can it grant declaratory relief; however, subject to the SCA and SCR, the court may make any order or give any direction necessary to achieve the purpose of the SCA and SCR.   One should review the  SCA and the SCR thoroughly. [See ''LLC v PG'', sub nom. ''Craig v Gidyk'', [1994] BCJ No. 1591 (Prov. Ct.); ''RK v McBride'', [1994] BCJ No. 2791; and ''Joey Beenz Coffee Bar Ltd. v Di Stasio (cob Neon Sign Writers)'', 2011 BCPC 375 (CanLII).