Quick Links

News | The Premier Online | Ministries & Organizations | Job Opportunities | Main Index

Contents

• B.C. Home
• Ministry of Justice
• Administrative Justice
  • About Administrative Justice
    • Administrative Tribunals in British Columbia
  • Self Help
    • About Administrative Justice
    • About Administrative Tribunals
    • About Tribunal Members
    • Different Tribunal Processes Used to Resolve Disputes
    • Steps in Resolving Disputes in Claims
    • The Tribunal Hearing
    • After the Tribunal Hearing
    • Articles and Publications of Interest
  • Publications and Research
    • Reports and Papers
    • Presentations
    • Publications
    • News Releases
    • Administrative Justice Reforms of Interest in Other Jurisdictions
  • Legislation
    • General Information about the Legislative Process
    • BC Laws
    • About the Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA)
    • About Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007
    • About the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2004
    • About the Administrative Tribunals Appointments and Administration Act, SBC 2003, Chapter 47 (ATAAA)
    • Administrative Tribunals Act Regulations
    • About the Public Inquiry Act, 2007
    • Administrative Tribunals in BC
  • Tribunal Tool Kit
    • Model Documents
      • Annotated Model Rules for Tribunals and Other Administrative Bodies
      • Sample Administrative Rules
      • Practice Directives ~ Overview
      • ATA s. 12 Model Practice Directive
      • ATA s. 13 Model Practice Directive
      • MOUs ~ An Overview
      • Model MOU - Version 6, September 1, 2007
    • Guides and Manuals
      • Access and Privacy Issues: A Guide for Tribunals
      • British Columbia Council of Administrative Tribunals' Adjudicators' Manual
      • Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals' On-line Decision-Writing Course
      • A Guide to Implementing Dispute Resolution into Tribunal Processes
      • A Guide for Tribunals: Obtaining Compliance with Tribunal Processes
      • A Guide for Tribunals: Stated Cases
      • A Guide for Consideration of a Process for Review of Administrative Decision-Making
    • Information Bulletins
      • Application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Administrative Tribunals
      • Orders for the Payment of Costs
      • Enforcing Tribunal Orders Using Court Processes
    • Tribunal Success Stories
      • New Rules of Practice and Procedure issued by the Safety Standards Appeal Board
      • Mediation and Arbitration Board using Service BC Centres to provide more effective local service
      • New Rules of Practice and Procedure issued by the Employment Standards Tribunal
      • Safety Standards Appeal Board now also hearing Homeowner Protection Act appeals
      • Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal Governance Tools
      • Memorandum of Understanding signed by Chair, Passenger Transportation Board and Minister of Transportation
      • Memorandum of Understanding signed by Chair, Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal and Minister of Employment and Income Assistance
      • Arrangement to Improve Efficiency and Independence for Industry Training Appeal Board
      • Memorandum of Understanding signed by Chair, Safety Standards Appeal Board and Minister of Forests and Range
      • Memorandum of Understanding becoming a “Best Practice”
      • Tribunals Report Their New Shared Registry is a Resounding Success
      • Property Assessment Appeal Board Successfully Licenses Technology to Alberta
  • Links
    • By Organization
    • In Alphabetical Order
  • Site Map
  • Contact

Dispute Resolution Office
B.C. Tribunal Dispute Resolution Needs Assessment Project

Overview of Initial Research and Preliminary Assessment

Background

In December 2005, the former Administrative Justice Office (AJO) and the Dispute Resolution Office (DRO) initiated a project to determine the nature and scope of dispute resolution processes used by B.C.’s administrative tribunals and to assess opportunities to enhance and expand dispute resolution capacity in the administrative justice system. For the first phase of the project, the AJO and DRO contracted with Craig Darling, a lawyer and public policy mediator, to undertake initial research, prepare a preliminary assessment and propose next steps.

Craig Darling conducted an initial assessment of 18 administrative tribunals by reviewing the tribunals’ mandates, enabling legislation and publicly documented case management and dispute resolution processes. At that time, 11 of the tribunals had explicit statutory authority to conduct dispute resolution processes — seven pursuant to Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and four pursuant to their enabling legislation.

The initial assessment was followed by an invitation to the tribunals to complete a brief questionnaire regarding the types of dispute resolution processes being used, use of the processes, perceived barriers to enhanced use and client satisfaction levels. The questionnaire also surveyed tribunals’ methods of monitoring and evaluating their dispute resolution processes and perceptions about the adequacy of those processes.

Survey Results

Dispute Resolution Processes Used
Of the 17 tribunals that completed the questionnaire, 15 indicated they used a range of dispute resolution processes, including early screening, settlement meetings, pre-hearing conferences, mediation and non-binding case evaluation. Larger tribunals (such as the Human Rights Tribunal, Labour Relations Board and Property Appeals Assessment Board) reported they have integrated dispute resolution processes into their case management systems. The nature and extent of integration at other tribunals was not readily apparent.

Barriers to Use
Forty-four per cent of survey respondents (seven tribunals) identified limited demand as a barrier to increased use of dispute resolution processes (clients prefer hearings or are skeptical about settlement processes). Thirty-eight per cent (six tribunals) indicated that dispute resolution is incompatible with their tribunal’s mandate. Other barriers identified were resource and/or budget limitations (six tribunals), statutory time constraints (two tribunals), procedural barriers (two tribunals), insufficient case volume (one tribunal) and client skepticism (one tribunal).

Evaluation and Effectiveness
All tribunals in the study sample indicated their dispute resolution processes are adequate or more to meet current needs. Most tribunals (86 per cent) perceived their clients (the parties to a complaint or appeal) are either satisfied or very satisfied with their tribunal’s dispute resolution processes. However, only 66 per cent of the tribunals (10 out of 15) established measures to evaluate the effectiveness of their processes. For those that evaluated effectiveness, the predominant criteria were settlement rates, time savings and cost effectiveness. Only one tribunal used client satisfaction as a criterion for evaluating effectiveness.

Conclusions

The report noted that the survey results support only a preliminary assessment and suggested the DRO take the following steps to move the assessment to the next level:

1. As time, budget and resource limitations precluded interviews with tribunal chairs to confirm and further explore the perceptions indicated by the responses to the questionnaire, the initial research should be verified through discussions with tribunals and informed by survey results and observations. The verification process could be initiated by distributing a copy of the report to tribunals for comment.
2. To more completely assess the need to enhance or expand tribunal dispute resolution capacity, follow-up research is necessary to address a number of gaps in the baseline information identified in the report.

Hard data is also required to both verify the level of client satisfaction with the tribunals’ dispute resolution processes and the tribunals’ perceptions that there is no need to enhance or expand tribunal dispute resolution capacity.

The consultant also indicated the DRO may be able to take the following action to promote use of dispute resolution processes at administrative tribunals:

• Help tribunals to articulate and develop strategies to address both the practical and legal or policy barriers to increased usage.
• Provide support and resource material for the development and application of tools for monitoring and evaluating dispute resolution processes.
• Act as a catalyst and link to the appropriate resources to help address communication, education and training challenges related to dispute resolution processes, such as:
• poor stakeholder knowledge about the nature and benefits of processes (which can result in less than optimal usage rates); and
• unmet needs for specialized tribunal-centered training, to address system design issues and challenges associated with integrating processes into an adjudicative system.

The report provided a preliminary assessment of tribunals’ dispute resolution processes and, as noted within the report, the initial results may change as a result of follow-up discussions with tribunals and the additional research required to close various information gaps. The DRO planned to verify the initial research and address the information gaps, subject to the availability of resources.

Appendix 1

Administrative tribunals identified for the project study sample:

• Agricultural Land Commission (ALC)
• Community Care and Assisted Living Appeal Board (CCALB)
• Employment Standards Tribunal (EST)
• Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) / Forest Appeals Commission (FAC)
• Farm Industry Review Board (FIRB)
• Financial Services Tribunal (FST)
• Forest Practices Board (FPB)
• Hospital Appeal Board (HAB)
• Human Rights Tribunal (HRT)
• Labour Relations Board (LRB)
• Mediation and Arbitration Board (MAB)
• Mental Health Review Board (MHRB)
• Passenger Transportation Board (PTB)
• Property Assessment Appeal Board (PAAB)
• Safety Standards Appeal Board (SSAB)
• B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC)
• Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT)