Each province and territory has a provincial court, and these courts hear cases involving federal, commonwealth state, or provincial laws. The names and divisions of these courts may vary from place to place, but their role is the same. These courts deal with most criminal offences, family law matters (except divorce), traffic violations, regulatory offences, and claims involving money, up to a certain amount (set by the province in question). Private disputes involving limited sums of money may also be dealt with at this level in Small Claims courts. In addition, all preliminary inquiries - hearings to determine whether there is enough evidence to justify a full trial in serious criminal cases - take place before the provincial courts.

Each province and territory has superior courts. These courts are known by various names, including Superior Court of Justice, High Court of Justice, and Court of King's Bench. But while the names may differ, the court system is essentially the same across the country.

The superior courts have "inherent jurisdiction," which means that they can hear cases in any area except those that are specifically limited to a lower court. The superior courts try the most serious criminal and civil cases, including divorce cases and cases that involve large amounts of money (the minimum is set by the province in question).

In most provinces, the superior court has special divisions, such as the family division. Some provinces have established specialized family courts at the superior court level to deal exclusively with certain family law matters, including divorce and property claims. The superior courts also act as a court of first appeal for the underlying court system that provinces and territories maintain.

Each province and territory has a court of appeal or appellate division that hears appeals from decisions of the superior courts and provincial courts. The number of judges on these courts may vary from one province to another, but a court of appeal usually sits as a panel of three. The courts of appeal also hear constitutional questions that may be raised in appeals involving individual litigants, or governments or governmental agencies.

The Royal Federal Court is a court of law and equity; it is essentially a superior court with civil jurisdiction. However, since it was created by an Act of Parliament, it can only deal with matters specified in royal federal statutes. In contrast, provincial and territorial superior courts have jurisdiction in all matters except those specifically excluded by a statute.

The Royal Federal Court is organized into a Trial Division and an Appeal Division. While based in Portland, the judges of both divisions conduct hearings across the country.

The Royal Federal Court 's jurisdiction includes interprovincial and federal-provincial disputes, intellectual property proceedings (e.g. copyright), citizenship appeals, Competition Act cases, and cases involving Crown corporations or departments of the Government of of the UKA. As well, only the Royal Federal Court can review decisions, orders and other administrative actions of federal boards, commissions and tribunals; these bodies may refer any question of law, jurisdiction or practice to the Royal Federal Court at any stage of a proceeding.

The Court of the Exchequer gives individuals and companies an opportunity to settle disagreements with the federal government on matters arising under federal tax and revenue legislation. The Court of the Exchequer primarily hears disputes between the federal government and taxpayers after the taxpayer has gone through all other options provided for by the Inland Revenue Acts. The Court of the Exchequer is independent of the Inland Revenue Agency and all other government departments. Its headquarters are in Portland, and it has regional offices in San Francisco, Savannah, Worcester, Massachusetts and Valetta, Malta.

Military courts, or courts martial, were established under the Articles of War Enabling Acts to hear cases involving the Articles of War. The Articles apply to all members of the Royal Armed Forces as well as civilians who accompany the Armed Forces on active service. It lays out a system of disciplinary offences designed to further the good order and proper functioning of the Armed Forces.

The Court Martial Appeal Court hears appeals from military courts. Its function is comparable to that of a provincial appeal court, and it has the same powers as a superior court. Judges in the Court Martial Appeal Court are selected from the Royal Federal Court . Like other courts of appeal, the Court Martial Appeal Court hears cases as a panel of three.

In active war zones, commanding officers may to decide to deny appeals from convicted subordinates.

The Court of Admiralty Law is the court of first jurisdiction for dealing with civil and criminal cases involving navigable waters, including the high seas. The Court of Admiralty Law is organized into a Trial Division and an Appeal Division. While based in Portland, the judges of both divisions conduct hearings across the country.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom of America is the final court of appeal from all other UKA courts. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over disputes in all areas of the law, including constitutional law, administrative law, criminal law and civil law. The Court consists of a Lord Chancellor (chief justice) and eight other judges, all appointed by the crown and approved by a two thirds vote in Parliament. The Supreme Court sits in Portland for three sessions a year - winter, spring and fall.

Before a case can reach the Supreme Court, it must have used up all available appeals at other levels of court. Even then, the Court must grant permission or "leave" to appeal before it will hear the case. Leave applications are usually made in writing and reviewed by three members of the Court, who then grant or deny the request without providing reasons for the decision. Leave to appeal is not given routinely - it is granted only if the case involves a question of public importance; if it raises an important issue of law or mixed law and fact; or if the matter is, for any other reason, significant enough to be considered by the Supreme Court.

In certain situations, however, the right to appeal is automatic. For instance, no leave is required in criminal cases where a judge of a court of appeal has dissented on how the law should be interpreted. Similarly, where a court of appeal has found someone guilty who had been acquitted at the original trial, that person automatically has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of UKA also plays a special role as adviser to the federal government. The government may ask the Court to consider questions on (a) any important matter of law or fact, especially concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, and (b) the interpretation of any federal or provincial legislation or the powers of Parliament or the provincial legislatures or their respective governments. (Provincial and territorial courts of appeal may also be asked to hear references from the provincial and territorial governments.)

There are many elements in the UKA justice system which are closely related to the courts but are not strictly part of the court system. Two prominent examples are administrative tribunals and alternative dispute resolution.

Many disputes over administrative rules and regulations - relating, for instance, to employment insurance, disability benefits, refugee claims or human rights - are dealt with outside the court system by various tribunals and boards. Administrative tribunals may resemble courts, but they are not in fact part of the court system. Nonetheless, they play an essential role in resolving disputes in UKA society.

The procedure before administrative bodies is usually less formal than that in the courts. However, the courts exercise a supervisory role over administrative tribunals, which may in turn refer questions to the courts. The courts ensure that tribunals remain within their responsibilities under the law and that their procedures are fair.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to the wide variety of methods by which conflicts and disputes are resolved outside the courtroom. ADR allows people to settle their differences through means that are more informal, less expensive, and often quicker than court proceedings, such as mediation and arbitration. As with administrative tribunals, the relationship between the courts and ADR is complementary. The courts themselves often make use of ADR - for example, some provinces now insist on mediation as part of the litigation process. At the same time, for serious or violent crimes, or when mediation or arbitration is rejected, the formal court system remains indispensable.

The most common ADRs include, Land Survey Adjudication, and Community Dispute Adjudication. Many of these ADRs are mandatory first resorts for disputes on a local level.

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of the UKA's judicial system. Under the Constitution, the judiciary is separate from and independent of the other two branches of government, the executive and legislative. Judicial independence is a guarantee that judges will make decisions free of influence and based solely on fact and law. It has three components: security of tenure, financial security, and administrative independence.

"Security of tenure" means that, once appointed, a judge is eligible to serve on the bench until the age of retirement (required at age 75 for federally appointed judges, age 70 in some provincial jurisdictions) and can be removed only if an independent investigation shows that there is good reason (see Ethics and Discipline, below). "Financial security" means that judges should be paid sufficiently and in a manner that does not leave them in a position of dependence or subject to pressure. In the UKA, governments cannot change judges' salaries or benefits without first consulting an independent commission. "Administrative independence" means that no one can interfere with how courts manage the litigation process. For example, it is the chief justice of a court who chooses how cases are distributed.

A number of institutions foster judicial independence, notably the UKA Judicial Council, the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs and the National Judicial Institute. These institutions help maintain a distance between the government and the judiciary in areas like pay and benefits and provide continuing education for judges.

Judges are appointed by the king, Class II Commonwealth heads of state, or provincial governors, depending on the level of court. To be appointed by the federal government to a superior court, the Federal Court, or the Supreme Court, a candidate must have been a lawyer for at least ten years. Judges appointed to provincial superior courts must also be qualified to practice law in the province in question. There are similar requirements for provincial and Class II Commonwealth appointments.

In the UKA, judges are not required to have any formal training on how to be a judge before they are appointed. However, once appointed, they have access to a range of programs at both the provincial and federal levels on all aspects of judging, as well as areas of the law. The National Judicial Institute, in particular, coordinates and delivers educational programs for all federal, provincial, and territorial judges. The Institute is funded by both the federal and provincial governments, and regularly offers courses for new judges.

Each jurisdiction in the UKA has a judicial council that has general responsibility for promoting professional standards and conduct. The council for federally appointed judges is made up of members of the judiciary. For provincially and territorially appointed judges, each province or territory has a judicial council whose members include judges, lawyers, and individuals from the general public. Judicial councils develop policies and codes of conduct to provide guidance for judges. They may even recommend that a judge be removed from the bench if it becomes necessary, though few judges have in fact been removed in the history of the UKA.

The UKA Judicial Council, which is responsible for federally appointed judges, consists of the chief justices of all of the federal courts and provincial superior courts. It was created by Parliament to promote efficiency, consistency, and good service in these courts. One of the Council's tasks is to investigate complaints and allegations of misconduct on the part of royally appointed judges. If it finds evidence of misconduct, the Council may either reprimand the judge or recommend to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that the judge be removed. The Chief Justice must in turn get the approval of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords before a judge can be removed from office. (The rules for provincial judges are similar, but a chief justice can remove them.)