What the CRT set out to do
British Columbia set out to try something new with the Civil Resolution Tribunal. Created under the province's Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (2012) and operating from 2016, the CRT was Canada's first online tribunal. Its aim was to resolve certain disputes entirely online, without a lawyer and without a trip to a courthouse.
The range of disputes it handles is practical and everyday. The CRT was designed to deal with matters such as small claims and strata, or condominium, disputes, among others. These are exactly the kinds of problems that ordinary people run into and that can feel too small or too costly to take to a traditional court.
The design choice behind the CRT is worth noting. Rather than digitizing the existing courthouse experience, it built a process around the people using it, accessible from home and structured to be navigated without legal training. That ambition is what makes the CRT such a useful case study for anyone thinking about online justice.
What the evidence shows
Evaluations of the CRT found real access gains. About 45 percent of participants used the online tools outside traditional court hours, a reminder that many people simply cannot fit their legal problem into a nine-to-five courthouse schedule. The ability to work on a dispute in the evening or on a weekend is not a small convenience; for working people, it can be the difference between participating and giving up.
Users valued several features in particular. They appreciated round-the-clock access, not having to travel to a physical court, and rules that were easy to understand. Each of these chips away at a familiar barrier, whether it is time, distance, or the intimidating complexity of legal procedure.
Satisfaction was telling among those who had been to court before. Among participants with prior court experience, many were more satisfied with the CRT than with what they had experienced in the traditional system. The most common reason was straightforward: they liked the outcome, with about 62 percent pointing to the result itself. That suggests the online process did not come at the expense of a satisfactory resolution.
Who got left behind
The same research is candid about the limits of online justice. Roughly a third of participants found the system difficult or confusing. That is a significant minority, and it is a reminder that ease of use is not universal; what feels intuitive to one person can be a genuine obstacle to another.
There was also a pattern in who struggled. Respondents skewed older, which points to a familiar concern: online justice can widen access for many people while quietly excluding those who are less comfortable with technology. A system that works beautifully for some can leave others further behind than they were before.
The right conclusion is not to abandon online dispute resolution but to design it better. The CRT's experience shows that the gap is a design and support challenge, one that calls for clearer interfaces, alternative channels, and human help for those who need it. Online tools can broaden access dramatically, but only if their builders take seriously the people who do not find them easy.
What this is and is not
This is research and educational material on online dispute resolution and the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal. It is general legal information, not legal advice, and it does not describe any individual's matter.