Law360 Canada ( September 15, 2022, 6:21 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the Attorney General of British Columbia and several defendants in motor vehicle claims from the declaration that certain legislation was of no force or effect. In 2019, legislation came into force that vested an administrative tribunal, the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT), with jurisdiction to decide liability and damages for minor injuries resulting from motor vehicle accidents in British Columbia. The question before the Court was whether it had done so within permissible bounds given the jurisprudence that had developed around s. 96 of the Constitution Act. The legislative scheme gave the CRT exclusive jurisdiction to classify an injury as a minor injury. That triggered a presumption that the associated damages were below the tribunal limit amount of $50,000. The legislation directed the Supreme Court to dismiss or stay matters that were within the jurisdiction of the CRT unless it would not be in the interests of justice and fairness. The plaintiff Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia (TLABC) was an organization of legal professionals, many of whom were lawyers who frequently represented individuals who had suffered injuries because of motor vehicle accidents. The additional plaintiffs were individuals who suffered minor injuries in motor vehicle accidents after April 1, 2019, and who had commenced actions seeking to have their claims adjudicated in the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs applied for summary judgment or trial to resolve their claim relating to the s. 96 challenge to sections 16.1 and 133 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act. The plaintiffs argued that the scheme impermissibly granted to the CRT a jurisdiction that was dominated by the superior courts at the time of Confederation. The challenge was successful, and the judge declared the relevant provisions to be of no force or effect. The appellants took the position that the judge erred by characterizing the granted jurisdiction too broadly and then by failing to find that the granted jurisdiction was novel. They further submitted that the judge erred by failing to find that the granted jurisdiction was analogous to a jurisdiction over which there was general shared involvement or meaningful concurrency between the inferior and superior courts at Confederation. Finally, the appellants took the position that the impugned jurisdiction did not offend the core jurisdiction test....