 Starting off a little bit, these are presenters today. Me, Darren Thompson, I'm legal counsel from the VC Ministry of Attorney General. I also do some teaching at a few different Canadian law schools. And James, over to you. Thanks, Darren. As it says up there, James Anderson, I'm with Prost, Woodhouse Coopers, been working with the Ministry of Attorney Generals in VC for the last few years. And my role has really been the program manager of the systems that we've been building and responsible for the delivery and implementation of those. But I'm gonna let Darren do most of the talking today. And I'll jump in a few places and happy to answer any questions as we go through as well. So really looking forward to the session. Fantastic, thanks. So just to start off by turning back the clock a little bit here. In here in British Columbia, I've had the good fortune to be involved in a number of online dispute resolution projects. The ones that I've got up here date back to around 2011. And what was happening then is the team that I've belonged to had been looking at online dispute resolution for a while. We had been studying it and trying to imagine ways that we could apply it to more public dispute resolution. So at the time, most of the online dispute resolution work was related to e-commerce. eBay and PayPal, of course, are some of the most well-known examples. And for those of you who aren't so familiar with Alengo online dispute resolution, it's kind of hard to define. You'll find different definitions out there depending on where you look. But for me, it's just basically applying technology to a dispute resolution process. It doesn't need to be, by the way, entirely consensual or consent-based dispute resolution or ADR type of things. It can certainly be adversarial, adjudicative processes and everything that leads up to that, including negotiation, facilitation or mediation and so on. So what we did in these smaller experiments again that began in 2011 is we just wanted to go out and try it on some real cases. We didn't want to run a simulation. We didn't want to do a study on the pros and cons. We wanted to actually run real disputes through a system. We partnered up with Modria, which is an online dispute resolution platform provider. They're now part of Tyler Technologies based in the US. And once we figured out that we wanted to try that platform, we had to find some partners to give us some disputes. So the first organization that we linked up with was Consumer Protection BC. And in that case, we just did some sort of low volume testing. We set it up. It was free. It was consent-based sort of thing. A party would have to opt in. The retailer would have to opt in. And we just ran some disputes through the platform and had some good results. Again, I want to emphasize really low volumes. The next organization was somebody called the Property Assessment Appeal Board. They're an administrative tribunal here in British Columbia who was already quite innovative in many ways. They did a lot of their work remotely. And they did a lot of alternative dispute resolution. So we decided to try it with them and same idea. Low volume, we just wanted to go out there and get some real cases. And some of their applicants or disputants opted into the process. And we had some good results. The next thing they did that's relevant for what you're going to see coming up is they set up sort of a front end, an online tool. It was just web pages in that case. And it was to help people understand the process and get some information about their dispute. So in this case, it's not just giving straight up information. It was actually answering questions or offering questions and giving answers to figure out things like, do I have a strong case? Do I have all the information I need? And so on. So that was connected to sort of as an extension on the front end of the online dispute resolution process. And again, low volumes, but good results. So what that led to for us here in British Columbia was the development of a much bigger project called the Civil Resolution Tribunal or the CRT. We passed some legislation through in 2011 that authorized the creation of this new tribunal. The jurisdiction of the tribunal is, there's two jurisdictions actually. One is Strata, what we call strata here, which is a type of condominium ownership. Think neighbor disputes, everything from barking dogs to pools to parties to big things, expensive things like needing a roof replacement and so on on your building. And the other jurisdiction was small claims. So here for us just to sort of point one thing out, this didn't happen directly within the courts. In our case, what we did in the case of the CRT was set up a separate entity or a separate public dispute resolution body that operates as an administrative tribunal. The legislation did a lot of things, including making online dispute resolution part of the body of law of British Columbia. Expressly made clear that the CRT was going to operate differently than traditional court or justice processes. It specified that things would happen asynchronously. That is, parties were not always going to be interacting in real time, it would do things remotely and people could be required to go through an online process to sort of screen themselves in and all sorts of different things. So as I said, the legislation was passed in around 2011 or 2012. We had some amendments since then and they spent a few years after that time working to sort of implement everything from drafting the rules to hiring staff to building the technology and onboarding it. So in terms of the structure of the tribunal, I mentioned that in the property assessment appeal board case, one of our early ODR experiments or pilot projects, there was an online system to screen people in and that's exactly what we expanded on when the civil resolution tribunal was developed. So the front end of the civil resolution tribunal is something called, we call the solution explorer. And what the solution explorer is, is it's a type of expert system and expert systems are basically, it's a technology that is supposed to emulate or emulate the interactions that a person might have with a human expert. In terms of expectation management, I want to be really clear saying this doesn't replace a human expert, but it can provide some of the benefits that we get from human experts. It can reason, it can draw conclusions and so on. In the case of the solution explorer, the civil resolution tribunal uses it for diagnosing disputes. Once the diagnosis is being made, it can start to give information about the dispute, information that we think that the person with that type of problem or dispute needs. It can give some self-help options and it can do some streaming or triage. So once it's done some of these things, the diagnosis and information self-help, it can let the person know where they should go next. And maybe in some cases, if it's a very serious matter, it can say, look, you need really urgent sort of help, you should go here right away, that sort of thing. Here's what I'll point out here is, it's kind of controversial these days to talk about expert systems and in terms of whether they are AI. I would say it's first wave AI, so that being very handcrafted rules, it's not a learning system, it doesn't learn on its own, but we have a process where we go out into the world and we talk to human experts, we capture their knowledge and we have a way of turning it into rules, think big decision trees. That forms our knowledge base for the solution explorer and that way we can use that human expertise to deliver it to non-expert users through the system. The system is free, if a person comes to use it, they haven't started a case, they haven't paid a fee, they can do it any time of day or night and everything we build runs on a mobile phone. If the person goes through the solution explorer and sort of recognizes they do have a dispute that they need to bring to the tribunal for a resolution, that's the next step. We're gonna show you a little more in depth how that process works and what it looks like, but just for now, I'll point out that the process for starting your dispute with the Civil Resolution Tribunal and making your application again is remote and there's a real mix of the ways that people can interact. A lot of it happens online when these technologies were built, we assumed that this was gonna be the number one preferred sort of channel that people will use. It's turned out to be true, but there are, as we'll talk about in a minute, other ways to get in there. So this is just the idea, I don't know if any of you have read any of Richard Susskind's books, but he asks that question of whether court is a service or a place. We think it's good to really focus on the service in our case. The service we provide is dispute resolution and we don't really need a place strictly to do that. So what I will say though, ironically, is the building through the technology-based channels has enabled us to link, the tribunal to link with more front counters than we actually have with our courts. So our courts have 44 full-time locations in BC, but based on the way the Civil Resolution Tribunal was designed, it can link with Service BC, which is sort of catch all government service outlets and there are 62 locations through the province. So that's one of the interesting things is we actually managed, we surprised ourselves and managed to link it up with more front counters than we'd had before. It's really tempting, especially for those of us who are excited about technology in the ways that it can improve justice processes to get carried away and just talk about technology and it becomes the whole technology project sort of thing. We did our best for the team who worked on this tribunal, did its best to avoid getting drawn into that vortex of, hey, this is a big tech project and really tried to focus on users. We knew that building a technology that had hundreds of thousands of functions that we thought were great and that we thought justice processes require was probably end up being something that nobody wanted to use. So what we managed to do was sort of self-regulate a little bit, train ourselves. We got lots of help from sort of a multidisciplinary, building a multidisciplinary team, lots of people with technology background but also user experience design and so on to help us figure out a way to build technology that people would be able to use, maybe in some cases they would actually want to use and always throughout keep users at the center. So we went out and consulted, we did surveys of the public, we did online focus groups to learn about small businesses, for example, what they wanted out of a dispute resolution process and how they prefer to resolve disputes and so on. We would go back, our team would conceptualize it and sort of sketch it out. We would consult again, ask people, would you use something like this if we built it? We would get a little more into designing and so on and so forth. So we would prototype things, just build them with web pages or sort of visual designs and so on, keep consulting, building and we haven't stopped. So James, this might be a good place for you to jump in and just talk about how the technology work is still ongoing, there's still building for the tribunal and how that, from an agile perspective, you're weaving this approach in. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this idea of being user-centric and continuously improving has really driven everything that we've done, both as Darren says, in terms of conceptualizing what we should build but actually through the development delivery cycles, we actually continue to continuously consult, build, assess, change if need be. So we've established a very kind of agile project team. For the last 18 months, we've been rolling out new software features every three weeks, which is actually fantastic for both the Civil Resolution Tribunal but also citizens because as we're exposing more and more features and more system functionality, we get feedback from staff, we get feedback from citizens and we'll talk a bit more about that in a few more slides to actually say whether or not things are working. And that work is ongoing and we see, we've got many months left to get things finished for the CRT but we'll continue to keep this agile methodology rolling where we really do take that feedback in real time and use it to improve things not in months or years but in a couple of weeks. And yeah, I think we'll talk a bit more about what we're doing with some of that data that we get back later on. Fantastic, thanks. So here's the ugly truth if you just want to have a takeaway here is, and this is what Shannon Salter, who's the chair of the Civil Resolution Tribunal, you'll hear her say. Having a bunch of lawyers and tech people sit around the table, they're not always going to make the best decisions of what users need. So this is why we need to go out and talk to our users and talk to them often. So one of the sort of questions, challenges, issues, concerns that comes up in many discussions around using technology to improve access to justice is, what about the digital divide? What about the people who are unwilling or unable to use technology to access the justice process? It's something that we take very seriously. We do think it is a big issue. It deserves, you know, focus and attention. But what I want to tell you is the way the CRT has sort of dealt with that or addressed that is by not simply focusing on one technology channel or one technology building across multiple channels. So as I mentioned earlier, technology, the internet, accessing the services through the internet has turned out to be the biggest and channel. It's the richest channel. It's the one that we can do the most with. We can serve people very quickly and so on, but it's not the only channel. So the Civil Resolution Tribunal also pulls in telephone. It can switch back and forth between internet and telephone for some users, even if we're just looking at internet, by the way, that could be logging in through a portal and looking at something like you would look at a website, but it also can include email. So you can, again, split across channels. We do it. As people, we do it all the time. Anyways, mix these channels and that's exactly what the Tribunal can do. So it can handle paper documents. It can do mail. It can even have in-person meetings if it needs to or in-person hearings. But the idea here is to build the channels in a way so that they all work as seamlessly as possible together. What I will say with the sort of survey work we did and talking to the public before we started building was we recognized that there was gonna be a relatively small number of people who were going to be unwilling or unable to use technology. So that meant that we could build those offline processes to be pretty high touch. And by that I mean they don't have to be as scalable and as well built out as we might have thought because they're not going to be used very much. So the Tribunal can serve those people quite hands-on and knowing that most people are not going to be asking to be served that way. So it's just one way, I'm a firm believer that in terms of the digital divide, it's not something that anybody who's using technology for access to justice can actually solve but there are ways to handle it and working across multiple channels is definitely working well so far. This is a look at what the CRT's dispute resolution process looks like. We're going to look at the solution explorer in a minute. As I said, it's where the diagnosis information and self-help happens. If the person gets through that and needs to start an application, ask the Tribunal for help for resolution, that happens between the number one and number two spot here on the slide. They file their application, it gets screened into the Tribunal and then they have to give the other parties and the dispute notice and then we can start the dispute resolution process. What happens, one of the first activities is an online discussion, online negotiation to see if the parties can resolve it just by talking to each other. They may not have interacted with each other yet. This is to sort of take the cream of the cases out of the system that only need a tiny little bit of help to reach a resolution by agreement. If that doesn't work, then a facilitator comes on from the Tribunal. It's very much like a mediation, like many of you might be familiar with, where it's a neutral third party who's working with the disputants to see if they can resolve all of the issues or if not at least resolve some of the issues. If, and by the way again, that happens, that can happen across multiple channels. So imagine we're getting our information together through asynchronous sort of technology-based channel and the facilitator says, you know what, I think I wanna get everybody together on the telephone on Thursday afternoon at 2.30 for 45 minutes, they can go ahead and arrange that. If the facilitator can't help the parties reach a resolution of all the claims or issues in the dispute, then the emphasis of the facilitation phase turns to preparing the parties for an adjudicative or the decision process. And the idea is to make sure we have all the information ready. We wanna make sure everybody's clear on what the issues are. We wanna make sure the issues are as narrow as possible so that when that decision phase or the adjudication phase starts, that it will go as efficiently as possible. We don't wanna have a lot of people, you know, having to start over and interrupt the process. And so after that, the tribunal can make a decision. They can, resolving any issues the parties were unable to resolve themselves. And they can make orders to give effect to that decision. And then the parties, at least here in the BC example, can go off and file those with the court in the court enforcement process and try and enforce them that way. Of course, the key here is to avoid trying to rely too heavily on the decision and order resolution approach because we believe that if the parties can resolve the disputes by agreement, they're more likely to uphold them. So we have a question. How does the CRT address sophisticated and large actors like debt collectors? Yeah, it's a tricky sort of question. It's a really, or a challenge, it's a good one. And of course, so we have the unsophisticated debtor up against the sophisticated party who does this thing all the time. The CRT does, I've heard them say they do try to level the playing field where they can, but of course there are limits as to how far they can go. I would say that one of the biggest, a couple of things that might influence or support that effort is the facilitators often have some familiarity with the subject matter. So for example, in our condo dispute process, the facilitators will know a little bit about that process. So they can kind of, again, I don't wanna suggest anything that's inappropriate, but they can kind of focus the parties in and make sure everybody knows exactly what they should be talking about and narrow it that way to sort of avoid, one party leveraging just the process and procedure against the other one. A second point is the CRT as a tribunal is much, it's more informal than a court. So hopefully the parties will focus on the subject matter rather than again on trying to figure out how to navigate just the procedure, which we understand is something that defeats a lot of self-represented litigants in court processes. I guess the last thing I'll say about this is that a lot of, insofar as these interactions are not real time, the litigant who needs a little more help can go off and try and get it. I'm not again saying that they're definitely going to get the help they need, but at least they have a chance. Maybe they can look something up to a little bit of research and just to respond to a question or take the next step. So it's a big challenge. I don't think anybody's got it solved yet, but it's certainly something that tribunal is concerned with. What's our next question, Kat? Yeah, we have a lot of questions. So now he's saying, so most of the cases are done online and a very few options are done with the phone. So I guess to extend that out, I assume most of them online, but how does it break down with online with his phone versus other ways of using the system? Yeah, good question. Sorry, I don't have the data. And I think shortly we'll show you a little bit of data about the sort of channels and selection, but I'm not even sure that the tribunal itself tracks how often they switch between channels within a certain dispute. I apologize for that. That's totally okay. Let's take one more and then we'll keep going because some of the questions may end up sort of being spoken to as we go along. These are good questions. Okay. Have we got one more? Well, one more. Are the CCRT's court employees or independent contractors? There's actually a mix. Most of them are employees of the tribunal. I think they can draw on additional help on a contract basis when they need it, but the basic model is that the resolution support clerks, as they're called, and the facilitators are employees of the tribunal and public servants. And the adjudicators, which in our context we call tribunal members, they're appointed either on a full-time or a part-time basis. So there are a small number of full-time tribunal members including the chair and there's two vice chairs and I think there's another full-time member. And the rest of the tribunal members are paid sort of on a part-time or a per diem sort of basis. A lot of them are pretty senior lawyers who practice in these areas and they log in, so to speak, to the tribunal and do their work when their services are needed. So thanks for those questions. So let's jump in here. I wanna show everyone the solution explorer. I want you to have a look at it. It's best to work with a use case, which in this case I just put one quickly together. And so we'll let Sarah help us. She has a busy family. She's like many of us and a normal sort of Monday to Friday job. She had been looking for a nice big fancy fridge to fit into her newly renovated kitchen and found one that she'd been looking for. It was from a retailer that she kinda had some reservations about, but the price looked really good. So she went for it and ordered it and made the arrangements and it never arrived. So now Sarah, like many self-represented litigants is wondering what she can do next. So what I'm gonna do here is I'm gonna jump into the Civil Resolution Tribunals website. This is, I've actually gone ahead into the page, maybe I'll jump back, sorry everybody. When you get to the Civil Resolution Tribunal website, you can, a user can read a little bit about the tribunal and how it works and so on. And they can watch a video, which I won't show here about the solution explorer. I think it's about two minutes and 30 seconds long. Welcome you to take a look at it after the session. But when they're ready, the person can click Get Started. So again, just a little bit of information. You can see here that the website, big on white space, small on text, hopefully. It's very easy to add a lot of text. They certainly worked hard to just sort of take more of a minimalist approach, just tell people what they need. Let's say Sarah has had a look at this and she's decided that she's got a small claim. And now she's going to get into, just about to go into the solution explorer. So what she can do is look at the different types of disputes, the way that they're divided up across the domain. So again, our small claims domain is quite a broad civil domain. It includes a lot of different dispute types. So Sarah is going to jump into the buying and selling goods and services. So again, she can read a little bit about here. She can look at some information on limitation periods. She can learn what information she should gather and so forth. I'll apologize to you guys. I'm gonna be going very quickly through this. I'm not gonna be able to let you read everything. I'll just wanna show you basically the functions about how it works in the system. So Sarah clicks goods and services buyers and she clicks start. So here's a good example of a screen. I won't let you read today, but it is the terms of use. So Sarah can go ahead and take a look at that on her own time, agree and continue. The next thing we see is a question about whether or not we're on a public or a private computer. And the public computer would be examples we could think of as like if you go into a public library and use one of their terminals and so on, the system set up so that I won't let you download any information to that machine and it will also time you out a little faster. Time your session out. But Sarah is, she's using her cell phone or maybe she's using her laptop at home one night and she goes ahead and clicks start. So this is what a lot of the screens in the Solution Explorer look like. So we're now well into the platform. Again, just to remember I told you before it's an expert system. It's supposed to sort of emulate or imitate the interactions you might have with a human expert. What we're going to see here is questions that the user reads and then just answers about their circumstances or their situation. So that's the basic premise of how the system works. It's how we, what's happening in the background here, we don't remember, we don't need our users to know all this but what's happening in the background is we're starting to sort of navigate through the knowledge base based on those rules that we set up in the knowledge base. And the knowledge bases can be quite big. The strata or the condo version of this that we use has as well I think it's 3,400 different pathways you can go down so the knowledge base really can get big. We have the methodology to capture that and put it in the system. So a couple of other features here. We've got the progress bar that's pretty standard. What we have here is an access code. So it's a unique alphanumeric code that Sarah can send to herself so she can, if she needs to take a break and go and get a document or do something with her kids or whatever, she can go away and then she can come back within a 32 day period, put in the code and she'll pick up where she left off. So we've tried to make it so that people can step away if they need to. And there are a few other things. There's something broken link. People can tell the tribunal if they think something's not working, they can ask for reply and so on. There's also a point here where a user, if they're seeing a question and they think the answer that they wanted to give or they think the answer that they should be there isn't there, they can go ahead and click that and send a message to the tribunal. And on the tribunal side, they can try and figure out what's missing and what needs to be done. So let's get back to Sarah. She bought that fridge, remember, for her kitchen. So she's gonna answer this question for personal family or household use. We tried to make these sorts of questions very simple. This actually deals with quite a complex issue from a consumer, a legal sort of consumer law perspective here in British Columbia. This still means that the consumer protection legislation here in British Columbia would apply. It wouldn't be the same if she said it was for business use. So once she clicks the answer, she just clicks next. And in this case, we see another question. So what's happening here is we're starting that problem diagnosis. We've gone from the very broad small claims domain into a buying and selling sort of domain and now we're narrowing it even more to say, okay, this has to do with the consumer. And we're still trying to give simple questions to our user, but again, this is a pretty complex issue behind the scenes from a legal perspective for just saying, was the seller in the business of selling that good or service? Well, Sarah bought it from Acme Appliances. So she answers yes, because they are in the business. It wasn't at a garage sale or anything like that. Now we're asking Sarah what she bought. So I really just want you to imagine here the decision tree running in the background, the different pathways and so on. We're really again narrowing in on that diagnosis. Each of these sort of answers leads to its own unique set of pathways that would give different diagnosis, different information tools and streaming and so on. So this wasn't travel, it wasn't a funeral service, it wasn't a prepaid purchase card, it was something else. So that's what Sarah answers and clicks next. What we're getting into this point here is the first sort of information resource. And so what's happened here is we've done enough diagnosis that we can start to give our user basic information about the problem or this area. This can do a lot of things, it can give you, here's what you should do first, sort of guidance. It can say, here's what you shouldn't do. It can just sort of explain to the person how this all works. It can give general expectations of what a reasonable outcome might look like and so on. This is all collected through our knowledge engineering process where we go out and work with human subject matter experts. They're the ones who feed us this information. Our knowledge engineering team figures out how to put it in the right format so that we can work through it in the system. So this sets out a bunch of different bits of information. We try and do it in bite-sized chunks about the type of problem that Sarah's having. Again, I'll apologize, I'm gonna be going too quickly for you to read it today. One thing as well I'll point out here is our user can also rate using the star rating system. They can rate whether they like it or not. It's a way for us to capture or collect some user feedback in line rather than giving people a survey at the end. Sarah can also click the Not Helpful button which will record a Not Helpful press that our team looks at in terms of the analytics. And if we get, of course, too many Not Helpful clicks on a resource, we have to go in there and try and see if we can make some improvements. So let's click Next in Sarah's case and we're continuing the diagnosis here of her problem. This next question, what's the issue with what you bought? Well, in Sarah's case, it was a problem with quality or delivery. So remember her fridge didn't arrive. You can see just scanning quickly the other types of problems that Sarah might have had. The system would have its own way of addressing each of those individually. I'll just point out too that what we're doing is building, the system is building sort of a breadcrumb trail, trail along the side. If Sarah gets to a point where she's thinking that she might have ended up in the wrong place, she can just go back and give a different answer and take her down a different pathway. Now we've, again, just think about how we've narrowed this problem from the full small claims domain right down into a buyer and seller. We know it's a consumer. We know it's a problem with quality or delivery and now we're just continuing to go. So we can go as granular as we need to on the diagnosis. And again, this is something that our knowledge engineers figure out with the subject matter experts how granular or narrow we need to go. And in this case, Sarah says that the fridge wasn't delivered or the service, if it was a service, wasn't completed. So again, reasonable expectations. We don't want to rush people into, okay, get ready for a big adversarial court process or decision process. We want people to sort of know what a human expert might say, somebody who deals with these sorts of problems all the time. Here are some reasons why the thing that you ordered hasn't been delivered yet. And it's even giving some sort of guidance about steps the person can take to deal with that. At this point, we're also recognizing that the person's probably gonna have to look at their contract or their invoice or their receipt. So giving the user a little bit of information about that. And all of the information that we write in this, we have a style guide that we've created. We try and target a sixth to eighth grade literacy level. We don't always hit it, but we sure try hard to do it and try and restrict the information to just what the user, just what we think the user needs to know. So now we're asking Sarah what's a pretty simple question for her. Did you buy goods or did you buy services? Again, there's a really sticky legal issue that's in behind this, and that's why we're asking the question, but we try and just make it simple for her. So she bought goods, that was her fridge, and here's sort of a light treatment of that very sticky issue. We have some legislation here in British Columbia called the Sale of Goods Act, and it may also apply. So you can see here, we're trying to give our user a little bit of an impression about what some of the rights and obligations might be in this area and hopefully again limiting it to things that might be useful for a user. So we've done the diagnosis, the problem diagnosis, given some information about it, now we're shifting into the self-help sort of phase. So here we're asking Sarah which solution she would like to explore. As I mentioned, let me go back to Sarah. She was a little bit nervous about that retailer. It didn't have a great reputation, but the price looked good, so that's why she tried it. Now she's realizing maybe that it wasn't the best bet for her and she just wants to be done with Acme Appliances, so she's gonna ask the seller for her refund. So that's the option she takes and she clicks next. What we have here is that it's really the most common self-help tool that the system provides and it is a letter template or a communication template. So what would happen here is Sarah would go ahead, she can use the sort of wizard style approach and start to fill it out that way and it'll populate the letter. I'm just gonna jump to step two which will give everybody a bit of a better view of what this looks like. What it is is it's again a letter or communication template that is customized for this user's problem. So if you can imagine in the knowledge base for the Solution Explorer, there are lots of these in there and they are customized in many cases based on the diagnosis of the person's problem. So in Sarah's case, she had a problem with goods that aren't delivered. So if we had taken the time to go through all the questions, we would have filled in, here's where she would reference the fridge, here's where she would reference the purchase date and so on and it's saying, remember Sarah said that she wanted to get a refund, that's exactly what this letter says. So this is where the subject matter experts that we work with would tell us what the letter needs to say and we would go ahead and design it and put it in a certain format so that the system could deliver it to our user. So I'm gonna go to step three here. What the system, the way it's currently set up, it doesn't save any personal information so what we would have Sarah do is email a copy to herself so she'd get the digital copies of that letter or she could download it as a PDF since she's on a private computer or print it. You're gonna see a warning here again, we don't want our user to get upset because the system is not gonna save the information so that's what the second warning's for and she goes ahead and clicks next. Now we have a workbook for negotiating a solution so for those of you working in the ADR area, some of this will be familiar, identify your goals, be creative, take a problem solving approach and so on so that's another resource we give to our user in this case. And now we're asking what the value of the dispute is and this is because if Sarah will go on to file a dispute with the tribunal, this will affect the fee, there's a slightly higher fee or lower fee depending on the value in dispute so Sarah's fridge was $2,500 so she selects that and clicks next. So this just signifies that she is nearing the end of her exploration through the solution explorer. Some of the pathways we set up, we didn't see it in this one but some of the pathways we set up, you can select multiple aspects of a dispute and explore each of them in turn but we only went down a single pathway for Sarah. Now we've reached her summary report. So here's our code, this is telling Sarah, it'll save it for 32 days. If she comes in before the 32 days is up, it starts the clock again so it'll keep saving it. We've got a natural language summary, okay Sarah based on what you told us you bought or agreed to buy goods, you have an issue with delivery, you want to ask the seller for a refund, here are the resolution tools that we showed you, those are all down here, again there's the letter, if Sarah wanted to see it again and keep working on that and our warning and some of the info resources that we showed her they're all still here, collected in her summary report and the breadcrumb trail and so on. If she gets to the end and she tries all of that and wants to keep going into the tribunal process she would click this button right here. So this is where the sort of streaming comes in. We don't want a user to have to go away and go somewhere else to look up a bunch of different websites and so on. We tried to build the solution explorer and the civil resolution tribunal so that once you start down that solution explorer pathway you're in the right place. You don't need to decide, you don't need to take on another problem but figuring out where to go. So all Sarah would do would be clicking the start process button and it would take her into the intake which we're gonna show you some screens in just a minute here but it would basically start the intake process right into the tribunal. So that was the solution explorer. I'm just noticing the time here. We're gonna, I'm gonna speed up a little bit because I do wanna leave some time for questions. Really quickly this is some of the, it's just a snapshot. You won't be able to read it of sort of the dashboards that we get out of the solution explorer. So as you can imagine that there is a lot of really great analytics sort of data that comes out of it. We can see what's happening out there in the world with our users. What kind of problems are people saying they're having and how do those compare in terms of volumes to other problems that the system handles and so on. If you use technology as the backbone for your justice services or your access to justice services, it's in many cases going to be collecting this stuff automatically. So it's a huge advantage over more traditional ways of doing it. The early numbers, like these are some of the initial numbers like to give you an example. So we've had over 11,000 that the tribunal's had over 11,000 explorations on the small claims side. It based on those 11,000, the top three types of sort of big bucket disputes that come through are buyers, sellers, and then the third highest is property. So there's an example of an insight that we get from this data that we would not have anticipated. We would have picked something like personal injury or employment. I'm pretty sure we would not have selected property as one of the top domains. The top issues, I mean, you can start to drill down deeper into that. One of the top issues was a person bought goods or services for personal family household use. That's the one we looked at with Sarah. So there are 231 sort of people who explored that or 231 explorations down that pathway and so on. And we can see the claim values that people are identifying as they go through. So we get a chance to collect this data again before people have actually gone to the tribunal. A lot of these people might never go to the tribunal. They'll never pay the fee. They'll never start the file. But we still, by using the solution explorer to sort of extend the service out into the world, we still get a chance to collect this information and learn about what's happening. So the solution explorer is sort of built as its own module. It connects to a second module that's called the Dispute Resolution Suite. And just before we get into that, giving you a quick look at some of those screens, you can see what the tribunal looks like. I'll ask James if you wanna jump in here and let anybody know anything from an architecture perspective. Thanks, Darren. I mean, I guess the takeaway here is, as you mentioned, we've built the solution explorer and the Dispute Resolution Suite as modular applications. So they can work seamlessly. With each other, they can work independently. Or they can actually through, I mean, they're built on open standards and are all API based. So they can connect with other modern case management systems or intake systems. But as Darren mentioned, in the demo of the solution explorer, when you get to that point where you know that you wanna file a formal dispute and actually get into some negotiation or potentially facilitation, that's when you would actually go and do the intake and then you would start a case that would appear in the Dispute Resolution Suite, which is... Let me jump ahead here, James. You can actually show that. Go ahead. Yeah, I think you've got some screens of this. So this is, I mean, we're not gonna jump into the DRS software because it will take a long time to show you, but we just thought we'd show a few screens. So the solution explorer, the way we've configured it, actually will take an applicant to the right place to lodge their application formally. They'd be asked a series of questions. These intake conforms can be as simple or as complex as a tribune or a court wants them to be. But the types of things we're gonna be asking now to actually list personal details, representative details if applicable, respondents details, nature and details of the dispute, any evidence that's associated with the dispute that a disputant may wanna file at intake. And the DRS will actually take them through payment. In the case of BC, we link to British Columbia Express Pay, which is the government payment system. And this is really, what this actually does is, it kinda does data entry for the tribunal. So what we're actually asking citizens to do is enter the details of their dispute and this creates a case in the DRS, which has all of that information contained. So there's no rework, there's no paper form that needs to be kind of retranslated into the system. This actually creates the case and all of the rules associated with it automatically. So some of the points here too, for any of you who've spent any time designing court forms, it can be hard to design a court form. I know I've worked on hundreds of them myself to capture all of the sort of circumstances, different users, different information. What you can see here on that one screen that says who is applying, there's a radio button clicked that says, are you a person? They could have clicked, are you an organization or business, the one that you can't see is the Stratocorporation, that sort of thing. Depending on which radio button is clicked there, the fields all change on the form. So I mean, it's pretty simple, it seems straightforward. Of course you would do it this way, but that's not the way we've done it normally on forms. So here, depending on what you say you are, the fields all change. So it's only gonna ask you the information you need. You don't need to figure out which ones you're supposed to answer, which ones you're not supposed to answer. And as James said, that's huge for me. I used to work in our court services branch where we've got legions of registry staff who are data entering documents into the electronic case management system. The users are doing it here for the tribunal. So this is not just the front end, but it's the same system as the back end that the staff uses. So as the user enters this information, it's going to the database. That's a great point, Darren. And I think if, for example, a paper form did come in and we're filing that way, a staff member would use this exact same form to actually enter the time. So it really is the single place. And a practical example of what you're saying about reducing forms, and I know we're short of time, but one of the appellant-based tribunals we're working with in BC had 14 different intake forms. And now they have one that kind of responds to what a citizen is inputting and asks them the right questions based on their information. So let's jump ahead and see some of these other screens. What the system also does, the way it's set up is to be not just a form, but also like a workflow management tool. So it helps to keep the dispute moving along. It can do some of it automatically if there are business rules built into the system. It knows when to do something or it knows when to notify somebody, whether it's a disputant or whether it's a staff member that something needs to happen because a timeline is timed out or something. But it can also build instructions. So the Civil Resolution Tribunal does have rules. It's got its own set of rules of procedure, but wherever possible, what the team has tried to do is build the instructions and into the form of guidance right into the software. So here you can see a screen where we're asking the user, what do you wanna do? And in this case, it has to do with the notice process. So I say I'm a claimant and I've had to serve notice of a dispute to James and to Acme appliances and so on. And here's where it's just saying, okay, just tell us what you wanna do and it's gonna guide the user through those sorts of processes. Just one small example, but this is where we know self-represented litigants really get tripped up is a lot of the nuts and bolts sorts of procedural steps that maybe for a lawyer or a paralegal or another type of advocate are straightforward because they've done it hundreds of times but for the person who's only gonna have one dispute in their life that goes like this, it can be really scary. So this is another way we think it can sort of help. People focus just on the dispute and just on reaching a resolution. This is a look at the online negotiation screen. It is, again, pretty straightforward and a lot of that, the reason for that too is because we need all of these screens to work on mobile devices and things like tablets and phones as well as a computer but it's pretty straightforward again too. There's an advantage to building technology that looks like stuff people are used to using already. So they can go ahead and the parties can negotiate in here. It's also, I think it looks very similar for the facilitation phase, if I'm not mistaken, right, James? When a third party or third party neutrals come on. Yeah, absolutely. In that case, you would say a facilitator and the various parties all being able to use asynchronous chat to talk to one another. Fantastic, okay. So let's jump ahead here. This is what the user might see when they say they've gone through the negotiation, they've gone through the facilitation. There's at least one claim or issue that's still remaining that the parties just can't resolve by agreement. Now we need to get ready to go into the decision process so it's letting the parties know that that's what's going to happen. And in this case, it's getting them to asking each party to go through their information. And with a sort of a warning about not letting any negotiation or settlement discussions come through to that adversarial adjudicative phase because we don't want the decision maker to see that. James, I'll let you talk to the dashboards. Thanks, Darren. So as Darren showed that the solution explorer data earlier in how we're tracking that, I mean, the point I just wanted to get to here was we also track data, different things out of the use of the dispute resolution suite. And what that is really there to do is to drive our continuous improvement and to make changes that benefit both the CRT and citizens. And the practical example of that that we're currently doing at the moment is that the CRT is finding that a large number, well, more disputes than they expected go through to default decision or default judgment because either notice is never served or a respondent never responds. And doing those default judgments actually takes up a lot of staff time. So we're now going back and using the information that we captured over the last eight months to rework a couple of fields in the intake form, automate the default judgment process to actually free up a bunch of staff time and let them deal with the active disputes where they've got two parties that are in negotiation or in mediation. So, I mean, as you would expect of a modern system, we can basically track and report on any data that is captured in the system. So I won't spend too much more time on that slide. Thanks, Darren. Thanks, James. What I'll say is the firm and administrators perspective here, it's real time. And so you can see what's happening anytime. So at least from my own experiences working in the justice system, what we would normally do in court is go in and do an evaluation. And that would be sort of a snapshot one time, sort of collect all the information, compile it, analyze it and so on. Those are very helpful. I encourage people who work in courts to still do that, but this is a little different because we can see real time. We can see what's happening now and then we can see what's happening in a month. And that helps you in many ways, including watching trends, because the trends sometimes I think are what we're gonna find, tell the big stories and deserve our attention. In terms of some of the early data, this is, I focused mostly on the small claims here, but and remember it's unique to BC and our population and the current jurisdiction of the tribunal is for small claims only goes up to $5,000, but you could see some of the numbers, 2300 filed, 700 resolved. The vast majority of those are resolving by agreements. They don't need to go to the decision making phase, the adjudicative phase. We've had fewer strata or condo disputes filed, although that jurisdiction's been enforced for almost a year more than the small claims data. So the one thing, sorry, somebody may be typing there with a mic on. I'm not sure if that's a UJ's or Kat. So access time. So just in terms of a gain is court or a service or a place, take a look here, 45%, almost half of the people are using the tribunal's tools outside of normal court working hours. So think about Sarah, who has a Monday to Friday job and she has the busy family, she's racing around all over the place. She can do a lot of this work outside normal hours and that's certainly what we're finding for users so far based on the data. In terms of the format, we've had three, the tribunal has had three people out of 3,000 applications that it's received who have requested to not use email. So if email is sort of the, is it going to be digital? Is it not going to be digital sort of indicator? It's been 3,000 who've requested to use something other than email. So the tribunal has a way to, as I mentioned earlier, work across different channels and they can accommodate those user's needs. And about, say at a 350 to 400 applications that are coming through each month, about five might come in on a paper form. So the numbers are quite low. I appreciate some of us might recognize that there's some sort of people self-select for the tribunal based on whether or not they're using technology and computers, but in any event, I just want to be clear that there are ways to serve people across those different channels without using, strictly using technology, but the numbers are turning out to be quite low. The tribunal, one thing that it does in terms of we'd mentioned continuous improvement, we showed you the ways that we solicit feedback in the solution explorer from our users. Here's just a snapshot at a survey that the tribunal, for anybody who goes through the tribunal process, once they're finished, the tribunal gives them this survey and asks them questions about how it went. So this is some of the early data. It's looking really strong. Everybody's really excited about it. 90% of people felt they were treated fairly. 82% found the process easy to understand and 80% found the process intuitive. Rather than focusing just on the data here though that the CRT has collected, I'd just ask everybody to focus on the point or the idea of asking users, surveying users when they've gone through a justice process, how it went for them. If we do want to build processes that are accessible and that do focus on users and put them at the center of everything we do, I think this is a really effective way to get us there to support those efforts is we have to ask. We have to ask our users whether it's working for them. I have been at some conferences and meetings and so on where courts have indicated that this is not something they're prepared to do or they somehow perceive it as a threat to judicial independence. I'm not really sure how all those arguments work but I think there are ways of doing it where you could avoid some of those issues. The one thing you really have to prepare for from a cultural perspective is the possibility you're gonna hear things that you don't wanna hear. But that's a necessary step in figuring out what the problems are and then turning to ways to address them. If we don't do it, we're never gonna get there. Just overall in terms of the approach and the shifts that our team has been fortunate to work on, if you think about it in terms of the dispute resolution continuum, we really pick up with the solution explorer at least as a dispute containment. I like to think sort of approach. So remember we showed Sarah the letter template. We showed her some things she could do, review our contract. We showed her reasons why in her case her problem might have happened. So why an item might not have been delivered yet, setting those sort of reasonable expectations. Maybe she doesn't really have the problem that she thinks she has or maybe she can write, use that communication template and see if she can work on that problem with the other party, with the retailer and get it resolved before she ever needs to escalate it, before she needs to pay a fee, file a dispute, bring it into a formal public dispute resolution process. So I think we're picking up a contain. I personally and many of our team feel the same way we would love to extend even further into the prevent dispute sort of realm. We're working on it. I think if anything, the analytics data that we're picking up from the system, showing us where the types of problems are, maybe some of the trends will help us in the future get to a more robust sort of dispute prevention approach. Maybe the way we influence policies and change legislation regulatory measures to sort of prevent problems before they happen. Otherwise, we'll pick up at the contain, try the negotiation, the facilitation with the case managers and so on, the facilitators. We can adjudicate if we need to collect the user feedback. We collect it in the beginning. The tribunal also collects it at the end. It acts on it. It's part of our continuous improvement process. We do have regular meetings where we get together with the team, look at the data that's coming in, look at the complaints or questions that are coming in to the tribunal staff and figure out what we should do about it and then work it into some sort of solution, whether it's technology or information and so on. Well, I'll just leave, we can wrap up here. Well, leave you guys off with you. This is gonna be difficult for you to see, but it's a look at a web form that we've built that can pick up at the end of a solution explorer, exploration, so we've done the diagnosis, information self-help. This is sort of the streaming thing. So this web form can pick up what the diagnosis was and what the user said they wanted in this case. It has to do with an employment dispute. It can collect the user's information and then it can pass it off to another system. So we're trying to figure out ways where we can make the solution explorer interact with other systems, with existing systems. So imagine if you have an electronic system that we are able to interface the solution explorer with, imagine that it could handle a lot of the sort of first basic steps for an organization on intake, where by the time the issue comes to you, you already know what it's about, you already have some of the user's information, you know how the user wants to be served and you can kinda hit the ground running and before you even start to reach out to that person. So it could look something like this where that diagnosis is done, the information has been given to the user about their dispute, maybe some self-help. If it were a legal aid or sort of a pro bono organization, it could pre-qualify the user if you can imagine questions in the solution explorer that would pre-qualify somebody in terms of their income and eligibility. We can figure out what their service preference is. Hey, I want you to phone me, I want you to email me or I just wanna come in in person. You can collect their basic personal information that you're gonna need to open your file and your case management system anyways. Maybe it can pass the user into a document assembly tool, maybe a separate document assembly tool where it gets a document ready so that by the time they come and interact with your system or by the time you're reaching out to them based on their information, you have a lot of work done already. And again, so configure out how as an organization to allocate your resources. So what I will say is if there's anybody who's interested in talking to us about this sort of thing, please reach out and contact us. Sorry, I didn't put up a slide with the email or anything but you can maybe reach out through LSNTAP or I don't know, find me on Twitter or something. We, it is something our team is still interested in doing is working with other organizations to at least get to the imagination stage of how can we link to other systems and other processes because it is an approach that we believe in and we're still learning about ways we can apply and make it better. The, as you may have seen on an earlier slide, it's all built on the Salesforce platform so it's all built in the cloud. Both the modules, the Solution Explorer and the DRS and so it is offered on a licensed basis. That's how we designed it so that any other organization who comes on, they don't have to do a massive tech project and do a sort of one-off scratch build. Rather, they would go through an onboarding process and basically pay by licenses. But what we do have is the ability as well to set up sandboxes where in some cases we may not need licenses and we can do some small experiments with this sort of thing. So I'm gonna stop there. James, do you have anything to add before we sort of start in on the questions? No, that's great, thanks, Darren. I think that was just one, there was a question that was there specifically about licensing and whether it would be available for other jurisdictions. I think the answer is definitely yes. As Darren kind of mentioned and as I sort of alluded to, we built them as modular applications. Also, we know we've built them at the moment for a couple of tribunals in BC in the case of the Solution Explorer and the Civil Resolution Tribunal in the case of the Dispute Resolution Suite. But from day one, they've always been designed and architected as applications that would be usable both in other tribunals in BC, other geographies and other jurisdictions. So features can be easily configured and turned off as needed. As Darren said, it's built in the cloud so it is highly configurable and we'd love the opportunity to work with others. But for now, yeah, let's jump into the rest of those other questions because I think we've got about 15 minutes. Yeah, what else, just to add, to sprinkle some sugar on your last answer there too, James. I mean, if any of you have been involved in big tech projects, especially justice tech projects, they can be kind of scary and they can go on for years and often it ends up that you're stuck with a legacy system. So by the time you implement, your system's already a little bit out of date and it's very quickly you realize or you learn that the system is too old to justify further investment for upgrading and it's too expensive to replace. So you end up getting boxed in a corner. So what the BC government was trying in this case was building something on an existing sort of structure and that is Salesforce on the assumption that it was going to be kept current anyways. The underlying platform was always going to be upgraded, kept current because it's a big market, it's a lot of users using the system anyways. And then so a lot of the custom sort of justice processes or code, I guess that we felt would be helpful for a quarter of a tribunal were just built on top of that. The CRT have exclusive jurisdiction over small claims under 5,000 or can other parties still use the small claims court as before? On that point, I'll just say really, give a really short answer if I can is yes, you should consider it exclusive but a person can apply to be exempted from the process. So they can apply to basically go to court instead if they want. I don't have numbers on those. I think then they would be incredibly small though, like less than five or something, but I think that's happened. Nexus, have you done a return on investment analysis on this? We would have done it from a different sort of perspective. Not like a post ROI sort of thing but we would have done it on a business case. Hopefully I'm answering sort of the same sort of question. We would have done a Treasury Board submission is what we call it, where we have to ask the government funder to fund the initiative and what we would do is show the cost benefit sort of analysis for years one to three and the medium term and then the longer term where the bottom line on this is from a dollars and cents sort of perspective is we're trying to build something that from a public taxpayer sort of perspective is going to be more sustainable in the future and so the cost savings would come around not having a large number of full-time judges. Instead, again, we use the tribunal members who in many cases can be part-time sort of thing only called on when they're needed, not having bricks and mortar. So it's a, the tribunal has two small offices but that's not really their service model. Again, the service model is in the cloud and remote sort of delivery. Some of the staff who work do work remotely. Again, we have people who live on small islands sort of located between Victoria and Vancouver who work for the tribunal and some of the staff works in the offices some work in other places. So those all sort of feed into it. Do we think I got close on that? I got a pretty well though. I do believe I, what event? I believe there was even like analysis on about how much driving and emissions were saved using this method compared to having to drive people around. Yeah, yeah, there was one report. I think it was Noam Ebner and Kathy Tate paper if anybody is looking for it and I think it did go in a little deeper on the emissions sort of thing. I don't think anybody's done any actual sort of a quantitative analysis based on the CRT but it's certainly something I'm interested in. Yeah, and Darren, if we go back to the strategic objectives of tribunal transformation in BC and it wasn't a, as you say in the business case it wasn't a purely dollars and cents discussion. It was about transforming the way users interact with the justice system. It was about access to justice. It was about freeing up judges time. The CRT did do some analysis after about six months of running on the solution explorer and the DRS and applied some sort of parametrics around what the average cost of legal advice would be and a number of cases and those sorts of things. And I think that the finding was that it was absolutely meeting expectations of the investment but it wasn't, yeah, it's not something we've been publishing because it wasn't one of the key drivers for transformation. Okay. Oh, there's a small question. So Strata, is that just like a condo or is that different in some subtle way? Yeah, sorry about that. So there are a few Canadian jurisdictions who have Strata. I think there's some in Australia who call it Strata but yeah, it's a certain type of ownership that it's a very sort of regulated regime. We have a legislation called the Strata Property Act which is very detailed. Let me see if there's an as easy sort of generic way I can describe it. It's like a corporate form of ownership. So say your building is Strata Corporation, VIS 0328, there is a, there's a Strata Council and that's sort of like the directors who make the decisions for the Strata Corporation. I think they be called like HOA. Mono's Association. Yeah, in the US, I think that might be what they might be sort of comparable. These guys, you'd pay your Strata fees every month. It would be used for regular upkeep and one time sort of things. But yeah, neighbor disputes in a lot of cases. So hey, the person in the unit above me is doing tap dancing lessons. That's not working out too well for me. The neighbor next to me, they're smoking on their patio and it's blowing into my unit but it can also again be very much larger things like the Strata has decided it's going to spend $3 million to replace the roof or the windows in our building and I don't think they followed the right process under the act to make the decision and go ahead with the spending. Oh no. Okay, excellent. Going back a little bit, there's a big, you're talking a lot about being mobile-friendly. A lot of the resources though were in PDF form which has historically not been the most mobile-friendly format. Is that just because that's how it is or is there something wrong? Can I take that one, Darren? You bet. Yeah, I mean, we did a lot of work early on to make sure that particularly in the case of the solution explorer that everything was mobile-friendly. I won't talk too much about the kind of the web development framework we've used but I think, Darren, are you going to send out, is there going to be an opportunity for people to kind of test it or work with it? Yeah, I think they can just go, you can just go to the Civil Resolution for a bit on a website and trade out. I encourage people to do that and have a try. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. The mobile version of solution explorer looks very, very similar to the one on the screen that Darren showed but it's configured for mobile. The PDFs appear in a container so they're actually quite easy to read on a phone. Now if you download them and look at them yourself later on on a third-party app, they may not be as user-friendly but certainly when you're going through the exploration they are very, very easy to see, very easy to read. They work just as kind of you expect them to work on a PC screen. Huh, very cool. Yeah, the question about PDFs in particular is something our team has continued to look at and figure out we think and the future might be sort of iframe. So more, it would look that the text in the information bulletins would, or in for resources would look just like regular, the rest of the text in the system sort of thing. So I also didn't show you videos. So we also can build videos in. We have done it on some other pathways where there's a video that basically you click one screen and the next thing it does is take you to a video and then you keep going after that sort of thing. So it is something that we're aware of and we're working on but it's a good question about the PDFs. This is what James was just talking about. So say if I was on a mobile phone just pointing out it's not a different app you go to. It's not a different URL you go to. It's just all responsive design. So I can still go through my screens. I can still answer my questions. The progress bar is still there. It's just being moved off to the side and so on. And the other functions are all still there. As somebody who's been involved in this since 2012 or so when we started, I can tell you that in a lot of cases the first screens the team would see when something new was coming up. Here's what the designers, the developers are working on. A lot of times the first screens we all looked at were the mobile screens. We didn't start off with the big full desktop screens in all cases. Do you think this type of process would translate well to remote workshops offered by our court's self-help units? Yeah, I think so. I don't really see there's as being many limits to where this can be applied or at least tried. I mean, to be honest we never know until we try but that's something our team has always done is trying to go off and do the prototype, give it a try sort of thing. So, which again, if anybody wants to talk to me about that we're still looking for new ways to, new applications and so on. What I imagine is something like the Solution Explorer can provide a lot of the self-help. It can carry some of the load helping users figure out what they need to do for the court process. I didn't show you in the pathway that we went down but we have prototyped some pathways that do basically has the answer. What do you want to do next? And the user says I want to go to court. And so we'll take them into information that they need to know about getting ready for the court process and I think we can integrate without a huge amount of struggling. We can integrate it with the document assembly tool which would be there filling out the court form or the system could even collect it, collect the information that's needed in a court form and it could produce it in something that looks like the court form. So certainly can be the intermediary in those cases at least in my opinion. We haven't done it here but we can imagine it. Does all of BC have a unified court system? No, it's not quite, it's different than the US and other Commonwealth, they all seem to have their own systems but in the US we have a provincial court which is it does most of our small claims, a lot of our criminal work, a lot of our family work but then we have a superior court when we call it here Supreme Court of British Columbia and they handle higher, they tend to handle higher, more serious or higher value dispute sort of thing. There's still a trial court and then we have a court of appeal as well here in the province. Excellent, I think we're running out of time. Do you have anything else you'd like to say before we close this out? No, I just want to say thanks to LSN TAP again for organizing and hosting it. We really appreciate it. We love talking about this stuff as I'm sure you guys can tell and so thanks for the opportunity to do that. Don't be afraid to reach out again. I think we can make our contact information available for everybody if they want to ask us more questions or get into an imagination sort of session with us. We'd be happy to engage in that and I would just say to people any of the other, I mean I don't want to just focus on the technology here if anybody wants to talk about some of the other things like user centered processes, user experience design, collecting information from your users as you go, building it into a continuous improvement process, focusing on an alternative dispute resolution based sort of process, any and all of that we would be happy to talk about so and we'd love to hear from you. So thanks again for everybody for tuning in and thanks to LSN TAP for hosting.