Northpoint Legal Articles

The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) in British Columbia aims to simplify small claims and strata disputes through an online system, but its restrictions on legal representation may inadvertently harm insured parties and disrupt insurance-funded defences—raising fairness and financial concerns for both litigants and insurers.

In Sohal v. Lezama, 2021 BCCA 40, the BC Court of Appeal confirmed that courts have no discretion to allow third party claims for contribution or indemnity once the two-year limitation period under the Limitation Act, SBC 2012 has expired. This marks a sharp shift from the former regime, reinforcing the need for defendants to act promptly when seeking to involve third parties in litigation.

In Nelson (City) v. Marchi, 2021 SCC 41, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the City of Nelson could be held liable for injuries from snow clearing decisions. The Court clarified that “core policy” immunity applies only to high-level, deliberative decisions made by officials close to government. Since the City’s snow clearing was operational—not a core policy—it owed Ms. Marchi a duty of care. This decision guides how municipalities and insurers should assess liability and immunity claims in public service cases.

Concurrent causation in insurance law—where multiple events cause a loss—remains a complex issue, particularly when policies exclude one cause but not another. Courts distinguish between independent and serial causes, with coverage hinging on policy language and whether the excluded cause is the dominant factor.

British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) aims to improve access to justice through a streamlined, online process, but its exclusion of lawyers in most hearings may unintentionally harm fairness—especially for insured parties who risk losing their right to a funded legal defence.

In Acciona v. Allianz, the BC courts clarified that under a typical builders risk (Course of Construction) policy, economic losses—like increased subcontractor costs due to delays—are not covered unless explicitly stated, even if they stem directly from physical property damage.

When multiple causes contribute to a loss—some covered and others excluded—Canadian courts distinguish between independent and serial concurrent causes. Coverage depends on clear policy wording and whether the excluded peril is the dominant cause of the loss.

Canadian courts maintain a strict cap on non-pecuniary damages (approx. $360,000 today), while awards for aggravated and punitive damages—especially in insurance bad faith cases—remain uncapped and are slowly trending upward, with recent challenges pushing their upper limits.