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.
