It is one of the first examples in the world of online dispute resolution (ODR) being incorporated into the public justice system.

The CRT initially only had jurisdiction over small claims and strata property (condominium) disputes with a limited cost cap.

The Tribunal derives its powers from statute rather than the inherent jurisdiction of the courts, and initially was intended to enable the use of digital technology to resolve some minor civil disputes starting with sections of law for stratas.

These rules function akin to an instructional manual, facilitating fairness, transparency, and consistency within the tribunal's operations.

As part of its commitment to upholding these principles, the CRT undertakes regular reviews and updates of its regulations.

This ensures that the rules remain clear, coherent, and equitable for all parties involved in dispute resolution processes.

The CRT provides the public with access to interactive information pathways, tools, and a variety of dispute resolution methods including negotiation, facilitation and, if necessary, adjudication.

[8] The design of the quasi-judicial design of the CRT differs from court and has four stages being: Stage 1 - Apply & Respond - Intake & Solution Explorer The process begins with the use of the Solution Explorer, an online tool that helps applicants understand their legal options and prepare a Dispute Notice.

If both parties agree, they may enter a negotiation phase using the CRT’s online tools to resolve the dispute amicably.

A tribunal member makes a final decision based on the law, evidence, and arguments from all participants.

The time to receive a decision depends on the complexity of the case and the workload of the tribunal members, who are assigned based on their expertise and experience.

Following the release of a decision, the CRT seeks qualitative feedback from users for performance and academic purposes.

For all other types of claims, it usually takes a few weeks for a tribunal member to review the information, consider the issues, apply the law, and write their decision.

As the tribunal was created under an administrative law, the CRT has not endorsed or incorporated the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons established by the Canadian Judicial Council, while the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the Principles in Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23 [2017] 1 SCR 470.

Pursuant to section 56.6 of the CRTA, a party may only petition the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a judicial review of a CRT decision.