5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Choosing the Proper Forum for Small Claims (20:IV)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Choosing the Proper Forum for Small Claims (20:IV) (view source)
Revision as of 18:17, 12 August 2022
, 18:17, 12 August 2022no edit summary
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= August | {{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= August 12, 2022}} | ||
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = smallclaims}} | {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = smallclaims}} | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
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 $5,000, “roommate disputes”, certain motor vehicle injury disputes, and strata matters, '''Chapter 6: Human Rights''' for human rights claims proceeding through the Human Rights Tribunal, '''Chapter 7: Workers’ Compensation''' for workers’ compensation claims proceeding through the Workers’ Compensation Board, '''Chapter 8: Employment Insurance''' for EI matters proceeding through the Social Security Tribunal, '''Chapter 9: Employment Law''' for employment law related matters proceeding through the Employment Standards Branch, and '''Chapter 19: Landlord and Tenant Law''' for tenancy matters proceeding through the Residential Tenancy Branch. | 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 $5,000, “roommate disputes”, certain motor vehicle injury disputes, and strata matters, '''Chapter 6: Human Rights''' for human rights claims proceeding through the Human Rights Tribunal, '''Chapter 7: Workers’ Compensation''' for workers’ compensation claims proceeding through the Workers’ Compensation Board, '''Chapter 8: Employment Insurance''' for EI matters proceeding through the Social Security Tribunal, '''Chapter 9: Employment Law''' for employment law related matters proceeding through the Employment Standards Branch, and '''Chapter 19: Landlord and Tenant Law''' for tenancy matters proceeding through the Residential Tenancy Branch. | ||
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 [ | 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 [https://canlii.ca/t/jpkt8 ''Douez v. Facebook, Inc., 2022 BCSC 914'', 2022 BCSC 914] [Douez]. | ||
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; see [http://canlii.ca/t/1r9xl ''Borgstrom v Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd.'', 2007 BCCA 263]; [http://canlii.ca/t/1std6 ''Procon Mining & Tunnelling Ltd. v McNeil'', 2007 BCCA 438]). However, where a “forum selection clause” requires arbitration that would be practically inaccessible for reasons of cost or geography, a court may declare the clause invalid and adjudicate the claim ([http://canlii.ca/t/j8dvf ''Uber Technologies Inc v Heller'', 2020 SCC 16]). | 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; see [http://canlii.ca/t/1r9xl ''Borgstrom v Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd.'', 2007 BCCA 263]; [http://canlii.ca/t/1std6 ''Procon Mining & Tunnelling Ltd. v McNeil'', 2007 BCCA 438]). However, where a “forum selection clause” requires arbitration that would be practically inaccessible for reasons of cost or geography, a court may declare the clause invalid and adjudicate the claim ([http://canlii.ca/t/j8dvf ''Uber Technologies Inc v Heller'', 2020 SCC 16]). | ||