Regulated Paralegals

Regulated Paralegals – Public Consultation Underway

The government has released a proposed framework outlining the scope of practice for regulated paralegals and is currently seeking public feedback. The proposal introduces two categories of licensure: a General Scope Licence and a Family Law Specialization Licence.

1. General Scope Licence

Regulated paralegals holding a General Scope Licence would be authorized to:

• Represent clients in Provincial Court for matters such as:

  • Small claims

  • Traffic offences

  • Summary conviction criminal offences

  • Certain family law matters

• Appear before administrative tribunals, including:

  • Residential tenancy hearings

  • Workers’ compensation proceedings

• Provide legal services related to:

  • Wills and powers of attorney

  • Real estate transactions

  • Corporate filings and transactions

  • Estate administration

• Represent clients in Supreme Court for certain family law matters, subject to obtaining the Family Law Specialization Licence.

2. Family Law Specialization Licence

The Family Law Specialization Licence would be available to paralegals who already hold a General Scope Licence and wish to focus on family law. This additional certification would permit them to handle more complex family law matters, including:

• Adoptions

• Continuing custody orders in child protection matters

• Property division

• Other advanced family law issues

Certain areas would remain outside the scope of both licences, including:

• Surrogacy matters

• Fertility-related legal issues

• International child custody disputes

For complete details regarding the proposed framework, please review the full consultation materials provided by the government. If you wish to submit feedback, you may do so through the official online survey.

At Affordable Legal BC, we currently represent clients in Provincial Court in a capacity similar to what regulated paralegals are expected to provide once the new framework is implemented. Should you have any questions about how these changes may affect you, we welcome you to contact our office for further information.

Default Judgment: What to Watch Out For

Default Judgment in Provincial (Small Claims) Court: Deadlines and Consequences

Time moves quickly—particularly after you have been served with a Notice of Claim. Understanding your deadlines and obligations is critical.

Filing a Reply: The 14-Day Deadline

In Provincial (Small Claims) Court, a defendant typically has 14 days to file a Reply, depending on the method of service.

When calculating time:

• Do not count the day you were served.

• Do count the final day of the deadline period.

Fourteen days is often insufficient to gather evidence, assess your legal position, and prepare a thorough response. However, missing this deadline can have serious consequences.

What Happens If You Are Late?

If you fail to file your Reply within the required time, the claimant may apply for default judgment.

Default judgment is not a minor procedural setback. It allows the claimant to bypass the usual stages of small claims litigation and obtain judgment without a hearing. In effect, it is an immediate win for the claimant.

• If damages are not specified in the Notice of Claim, judgment may be granted with the amount to be assessed later.

• If damages are specified, judgment may be entered for that amount, with interest and allowable costs added. The claimant may then proceed with collection efforts.

At that point, your opportunity to defend the claim is significantly restricted.

While courts may set aside default judgment in certain circumstances, this outcome is never guaranteed.

Setting Aside Default Judgment: Key Case Law

Andrews v. Clay, 2018 BCCA 50 (CanLII)

This case examined the requirements for setting aside a default judgment obtained in Small Claims Court.

In this matter:

• Default judgment was entered after the defendant refused to attend a mandatory mediation.

• The defendant advised opposing counsel that he would not attend, asserting mediation was inappropriate.

• Opposing counsel warned that failure to attend could result in default judgment under the Small Claims Rules.

• The defendant maintained his refusal and indicated he would appeal any resulting judgment.

• Default judgment was entered the following day.

The matter proceeded through multiple levels of appeal, ultimately reaching the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the defendant had willfully failed to comply with the procedural requirement to attend mediation.

The Governing Test: Miracle Feeds v. D. & H. Enterprises Ltd. (1979), 10 B.C.L.R. 58 (Co. Ct.)

In British Columbia, courts assessing whether to set aside a default judgment consistently rely on the test below established by Judge Hinds. To succeed, a defendant must demonstrate:

1. No Willful Default
   The failure to file a defence or comply with procedural requirements was not deliberate or intentional.

2. Prompt Application
   The application to set aside the judgment was made as soon as reasonably possible after learning of it, or there is a satisfactory explanation for any delay.

3. Meritorious Defence
   The defendant has a defence that is arguable and worthy of investigation.

4. Proper Evidence
   The above requirements are supported by affidavit evidence filed with the court.

This framework remains the foundation for most applications to set aside default judgment in British Columbia.

Practical Takeaway

Courts do not treat procedural deadlines lightly. A conscious decision to ignore court requirements—such as filing a Reply or attending mandatory mediation—can result in default judgment that may be difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to reverse.

If you have been served with a claim, immediate action is essential. Early legal guidance can help protect your right to defend yourself and avoid the serious consequences of default judgment.

Dogs in Court

Pet-Related Legal Claims in Small Claims Court

Pets are increasingly integrated into our daily lives, with greater access to public spaces and shared environments. As interactions between people and animals—and between animals themselves—become more common, the potential for disputes and legal claims also rises.

British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has addressed a growing number of pet-related cases, demonstrating that these matters are both legally significant and fact-specific.

Common Types of Pet-Related Claims

Below are examples of recent CRT decisions illustrating the range of issues that may arise:

Veterinary Expense Recovery

East v. Wong 2025 BCCRT 766
This case considered recovery of veterinary costs following an incident involving a dog. Claims of this nature often arise after alleged negligence, injury, or animal altercations.

Refund Following Adoption or Purchase

Pauze v. Dogway Dog Rescue Society 2018 BCCRT 865
This decision addressed a dispute involving a request for a refund in relation to a dog adoption. Such claims may involve allegations of misrepresentation, undisclosed health issues, or contractual disagreements.

Liability for Unplanned Breeding

Ibrahim v. Roberta Henry, (dba Darling Dogs) 2019 BCCRT 320
This case examined responsibility for an unintended pregnancy involving a dog. Boarding facilities, breeders, and pet care providers may face liability where supervision or contractual obligations are at issue.

Allegations of Improper Care

Cohen v Rex Dog Hotel & Spa Ltd. 2018 BCCRT 489
This matter involved claims arising from alleged improper care provided by a pet boarding facility. Cases of this nature often turn on standards of care, contractual terms, and evidence of damages.

Practical Considerations

Pet-related claims commonly involve:

• Veterinary expenses

• Breach of contract

• Negligence

• Misrepresentation

• Property damage

Although pets are legally considered personal property, courts and tribunals recognize the practical and emotional importance they hold in their owners’ lives. Proper documentation—including contracts, veterinary records, invoices, and communications—is critical in advancing or defending a claim.

How We Can Help

Affordable Legal BC regularly handles small claims matters and is well-positioned to assist with pet-related disputes should the need arise.

If you are facing a claim—or considering bringing one—timely advice can help you understand your rights, assess your evidence, and determine the most effective course of action.

Missing Evidence

The Importance of Evidence in Civil Resolution Tribunal Claims

A recurring issue in Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) decisions is the failure of parties to properly present evidence. Both claimants and respondents—particularly those who are self-represented—often appear uncertain about how to submit and organize supporting materials.

Without admissible and persuasive evidence, even potentially valid claims may fail. Assertions alone are insufficient. The tribunal decides cases based on the evidence before it.

Below are recent examples illustrating this principle.

Recent CRT Decisions Highlighting Evidentiary Gaps

Jivraj v. Del Palaganas

In this case, the tribunal stated:

“The problem for Mr. Jivraj is that they provided no evidence, submissions, or argument for these claims.”

The absence of supporting documentation or structured argument resulted in dismissal of the claims.

Power v. Simpkins

The applicant alleged that a motor vehicle accident caused damage to a truck’s air conditioning condenser. However, the tribunal found:

• No photographs of the alleged damage were provided.

• No repair report or mechanic’s statement connected the damage to the accident.

As a result, the tribunal concluded that causation had not been proven and dismissed the claim for reimbursement.

Reid v. ICBC

In this matter, multiple aspects of the claim were dismissed due to insufficient evidence. The tribunal noted:

• No documentation of the spouse’s work schedule to support childcare-related benefits.

• No proof of payments made to substantiate entitlement to certain benefits.

• No evidence supporting speculative claims regarding potential property development profits.

• No documentation of payments to others for work allegedly performed.

In each instance, the tribunal emphasized that the claimant had not met the burden of proof.

A Common Pattern in Self-Represented Cases

These examples are far from exhaustive. A review of CRT decisions involving self-represented parties frequently reveals similar outcomes.

After investing time, effort, and financial resources into advancing a claim, parties may find that their case is not fully assessed on its merits simply because critical evidence was not gathered, organized, or properly submitted.

Key Takeaway: Evidence Is Essential

Whether bringing or defending a claim before the CRT or in Small Claims Court, it is essential to:

• Identify all relevant and necessary evidence early

• Obtain supporting documentation (contracts, invoices, photographs, reports, correspondence)

• Establish proof of causation and damages

• Present materials clearly and in accordance with tribunal requirements

Proper preparation can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

If you are considering a CRT claim or a small claims action and have questions about evidentiary requirements, we encourage you to contact our office. Early guidance can help ensure your case is supported by the documentation needed to succeed.

Sometimes it isn’t about the money

Jurisdictional Limits in British Columbia Courts and Tribunals

Understanding where to bring a claim in British Columbia depends largely on the nature and value of the dispute.

• The Supreme Court of British Columbia has no monetary jurisdictional limit and may hear claims involving millions—or even billions—of dollars.

• The Provincial Court of British Columbia (Small Claims Court) has a monetary cap of $35,000.

• The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) generally handles debt claims up to $5,000, along with strata property disputes and certain motor vehicle injury claims.

But what about disputes that involve relatively small amounts—or are not primarily about money at all? Minor grievances, bylaw disagreements, or points of contention within a strata community?

Many such disputes fall within the CRT’s jurisdiction, particularly where accessible procedures and lower filing fees (often starting around $150 for non-debt claims) are appropriate.

A Strata Dispute: Is an Inflatable Hot Tub “Furniture”?

A notable example is:

Emmerton v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3407

In this case, strata owners placed an inflatable hot tub on their rooftop patio. The strata corporation argued that its bylaws prohibited hot tubs on patios.

A key issue was whether the inflatable hot tub qualified as “furniture” or “patio furniture,” and whether it was sufficiently movable.

The tribunal considered earlier jurisprudence, including:

Trent v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3454

In Trent, the tribunal conducted a detailed review of court and CRT decisions interpreting the terms “furniture” and “patio furniture.”

In Emmerton, the tribunal found that the inflatable hot tub lacked permanence. Evidence showed it could be inflated or deflated in approximately five minutes and folded and carried by two people when deflated. This mobility weighed in favour of permitting it.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

The dispute did not end at the tribunal level. The matter ultimately proceeded to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, which dismissed the appeal. The decision allowing the hot tub to remain in place was upheld.

This case illustrates that even seemingly minor disputes—such as whether an inflatable hot tub constitutes patio furniture—can involve nuanced legal interpretation and progress through multiple levels of adjudication.

Key Takeaway

Not all disputes are about large sums of money. Many involve interpretation of bylaws, contractual terms, or statutory rights. Even relatively modest or non-monetary claims can raise complex legal issues and, in some cases, proceed through appellate review.

If you are unsure which forum is appropriate for your dispute—or how best to frame your claim—early guidance can help ensure your matter is brought in the correct venue and supported with the necessary evidence.

I have been following this case for some time now and I can report that it reached the Court of Appeal.

A fun read by Lisa Steacy of CTV news can be found here:

I encourage you to read the article, but I will save you some time and advise that the BCCA dismissed the appeal. The hot tub could stay. For more information on this case click here.