Écrit par Stephanie Day and Jackson Spencer

On February 25, 2025, British Columbia introduced Bill 4, proposing significant amendments to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA). Bill 4 passed second reading on March 3, 2025. If enacted as proposed, the legislation would prohibit dispute resolution clauses and class action waiver clauses in consumer contracts.

If enacted, Bill 4 will prohibit suppliers from including terms in consumer contracts that prevent consumers from commencing or becoming a class member of a class proceeding relating to a matter arising out of the consumer transaction (Section 14.3). Similarly, clauses that require a consumer to submit any dispute arising out of the consumer contract to arbitration or alternate dispute resolution processes before a dispute arises will be deemed void. This prohibition will also apply to “low value claims” in non-consumer contracts, a new concept for claims less than an amount to be prescribed in future regulations. Dispute resolution or class action waiver clauses agreed to before a dispute arising in such claims will be inoperative (Section 14.4).

These features of Bill 4 are retrospective and would apply to contracts entered into before, on, or after the act comes into force. Bill 4 would also make it an offence to contravene either section.

If passed, Bill 4 will align British Columbia with other provinces including Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The expansion to low-value claims in non-consumer contracts goes beyond the approach taken in those provinces. The Class Actions Quick Takes Blog will continue to track Bill 4’s progress through Parliament.

Have time to read more?

• Bill 4 defines “consumer contracts” to mean all contracts relating to a “consumer transaction.” The definition relies on the existing definition for a “consumer transaction” under the BPCPA, meaning the “supply of goods or services or real property by a supplier to a consumer for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household.”
• Bennett Jones has written recently about the enforceability of arbitration clauses generally, and the test for obtaining a stay of a court proceeding in favour of having an arbitral tribunal decide questions of jurisdiction.