Administrative Justice Office (AJO) and Dispute Resolution Office (DRO)
BC Tribunal Dispute Resolution Needs Assessment Project
Overview of Initial Research & Preliminary Assessment
Background
In December 2005, the AJO and DRO initiated a project to determine the nature and scope of dispute resolution processes used by BC’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.
Mr. Darling conducted an initial assessment of eighteen administrative tribunals by reviewing the tribunals’ mandates, enabling legislation and publicly documented case management and dispute resolution processes. Eleven of the tribunals have 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, utilization of the processes, perceived barriers to enhanced utilization 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 seventeen tribunals that completed the questionnaire , fifteen indicated that they use a range of dispute resolution processes, including early screening, settlement meetings, pre‑hearing conferences, mediation and non-binding case evaluation. Larger tribunals (e.g. Human Rights Tribunal, Labour Relations Board and Property Appeals Assessment Board) reported that they have integrated dispute resolution processes into their case management systems. The nature and extent of integration at other tribunals is not readily apparent.
Barriers to Utilization
Forty-four per cent of the survey respondents (7 tribunals) identified ‘limited demand’ as a barrier to increased utilization of dispute resolution processes (clients prefer hearings or are skeptical about settlement processes). Thirty-eight per cent (6 tribunals) indicated that dispute resolution is incompatible with the tribunal’s mandate. Other barriers identified were resource and/or budget limitations (6 tribunals), statutory time constraints (2 tribunals), procedural barriers (2 tribunals), insufficient case volume (1 tribunal) and client scepticism (1 tribunal).
Evaluation and Effectiveness
All of the tribunals in the study sample indicated that their dispute resolution processes are adequate or more than adequate to meet current needs. Most of the tribunals (86%) perceive that their ‘clients’ (the parties to a complaint or appeal) are either satisfied or very satisfied with the tribunal’s dispute resolution processes. However, only 66% of the tribunals (10 out of 15) have established measures to evaluate the effectiveness of their processes. For those that do evaluate effectiveness, the predominant criteria are settlement rates, time savings and cost effectiveness. Only one of the tribunals in the study sample uses client satisfaction as a criterion for evaluating effectiveness.
Conclusions
The report notes that the survey results support only a preliminary assessment and suggests that the AJO and DRO take the following steps to move the assessment to the next level:
- 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, informed by the survey results and observations. The verification process could be initiated by distributing a draft of the report to the tribunals for comment.
- 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 that are identified in the report.
Hard data is also required to verify the level of client satisfaction with the tribunals’ dispute resolution processes and verify the tribunals’ perception that there is no need to enhance or expand tribunal dispute resolution capacity.
The consultant also indicated that the AJO and DRO may be able to take the following action to promote utilization 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 utilization.
- Provide support and resource material for the development and application of tools for monitoring and evaluating dispute resolution processes.
- Act as a catalyst and as a 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 the processes (which can result in less than optimal utilization rates); and
- unmet needs for specialized ‘tribunal-centered’ training, to address system design issues and challenges associated with integrating the processes into an adjudicative system.
The following is a link to the full report. Please note that the report provides 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 the tribunals and the additional research required to close the various information gaps. The AJO and DRO plan to take action to verify the initial research and address the information gaps, subject to the availability of resources.
[Link to full Report]  (PDF - 497KB)
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)
|
