5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Choosing the Proper Forum for Small Claims (20:IV)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Choosing the Proper Forum for Small Claims (20:IV) (view source)
Revision as of 22:37, 17 July 2017
, 22:37, 17 July 2017no edit summary
m |
m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
There are several options for resolving most civil disputes in British Columbia: Alternative Dispute Resolution, specialised tribunals, Small Claims Court, the Civil Resolution Tribunal, and the Supreme Court of British Columbia. | There are several options for resolving most civil disputes in British Columbia: Alternative Dispute Resolution, specialised tribunals, Small Claims Court, the Civil Resolution Tribunal, and the Supreme Court of British Columbia. | ||
Certain claims must be made through administrative tribunals instead of the courts. See, for example, Section IV.C: | Certain claims must be made through administrative tribunals instead of the courts. See, for example, Section IV.C: Civil Resolution Tribunal for small claims matters under $5000 and strata matters, [[Introduction to 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 [[Introduction to 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 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). | 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). | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
=== 1. Amount Claimed === | === 1. Amount Claimed === | ||
'''Small Claims Court can award a judgment of up to $ | ''' As of June 1, 2017, Small Claims Court can award a judgment of up to $35,000.''' A person whose claim exceeds $35,000 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 $35,000 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 $ | 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 $35,000 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 $20,000 at the end of January for work done in January and issues another invoice for $20,000 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 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 $ | 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 $35,000. 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 $35,000 set-off, the claimant will have a net judgment of $15,000. ''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 === | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
== C. Civil Resolution Tribunal == | == C. Civil Resolution Tribunal == | ||
The Civil Resolution Tribunal is designed to be an alternative to Small Claims Court. | The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) is designed to be an alternative to Small Claims Court. The role of the Civil Resolution Tribunal is to encourage the resolution of disputes by agreement between the parties, and if resolution by agreement is not reached, then to resolve the dispute by deciding the claims brought to the tribunal by the parties. The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act [CRTA] and Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act [CRTAA] set out the general process and jurisdiction. | ||
For up to date information on the Civil Resolution Tribunal, associated legislative changes, and the official rules, please visit their website at https://www.civilresolutionbc.ca/. | |||
For up to date information on the Civil Resolution Tribunal | |||
=== 1. Jurisdiction === | === 1. Jurisdiction === | ||