Summary

As of Jan. 1, 2024, the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 (the Rules) were updated, replacing Rule 7.5 (summary trials) with Rule 8.25 (streamlined trials). Recent decisions by the Alberta Court of King's Bench (ABKB) saw three of four applications for streamlined trials denied, highlighting the strict criteria for these trials.

Test for streamlined trials

Under Rule 8.25(1) an applicant must demonstrate that:

  1. a streamlined trial is necessary for the purpose of the action to be fairly and justly resolved; and
  2. the streamlined trial must be proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, the amounts involved and the resources that can reasonably be allocated to resolving the dispute.

To help identify appropriate cases, the related Dec. 22, 2023, Notice to the Profession and Public suggests that streamlined trials may be suitable for straightforward matters such as actions for liquidated sums, recovery of property, document interpretation, minor personal injury claims and wrongful dismissal.

Case analysis

1. Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership, 2024 ABKB 397

The plaintiff's application in a wrongful dismissal case was denied, as a streamlined trial was deemed disproportionate to the case complexity, especially with issues beyond simple notice calculations. The Justice noted that streamlined trials should enhance efficiency and court resource allocation, which this case did not meet.

Justice Armstrong listed circumstances where a streamlined trial may be necessary:

  1. where the streamlined trial will create a more efficient process by eliminating unnecessary steps and reducing overall delay in the resolution of the dispute;
  2. where the streamlined trial will result in a more cost-effective process for the parties;
  3. where the streamlined trial will enhance the administration of justice by making more efficient use of court resources and provide litigants with a more accessible and timely dispute resolution process;
  4. where the streamlined trial will result in a more sharply focused process and the elimination of complexities in the form of interim applications that do not bear on the ultimate resolution of the real issues in dispute;
  5. where it would be unjust to require the parties to proceed to a full trial, considering the value and complexity of the dispute; and
  6. where the streamlined trial process will simplify the proceeding to make it easier for the parties to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their positions and thereby potentially reach a resolution without the need for a trial.

Justice Armstrong noted that the plaintiff's application overlooked proper allocation of public court resources. While trial time could be reduced, judge preparation time would be significantly higher in a streamlined trial than a conventional one.

2. Moore v Turner, 2024 ABKB 435

Moore is the only case where the ABKB has granted a streamlined trial. This estates dispute had previously been set for a summary trial before the Rules changed. The ABKB approved a streamlined trial due to the following factors: it was suitable for affidavit evidence, had low financial stakes, involved few witnesses, was not complex, included safeguards for the estate, was longstanding, involved elderly parties and had adequate evidence for a streamlined process. The Court observed that a streamlined trial here might prolong rather than expedite the case.

The defendant neither cross-examined the plaintiff nor submitted evidence, instructing counsel not to defend at the hearing. The Court's analysis, therefore, was based solely on the plaintiff's submissions, making it less relevant to cases with full participation.

3. Hou v Canadian North Inc., 2024 ABKB 549

In Hou, a wrongful dismissal case with multiple plaintiffs, the ABKB dismissed the request for a streamlined trial. Despite the relatively small amounts at issue, the court found that limiting the trial process would not allow a fair resolution due to the complexity and volume of evidence. The case required an extensive documentary record, and a streamlined trial would deprive the judge of essential context. This matter involved complex factual and legal issues regarding the plaintiffs' employment relationships, needing multiple affidavits, cross-examinations and likely live testimony.

4. Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563

In Bailey, a wrongful dismissal case involving just cause termination and allegations of deceit and breach of trust, the ABKB dismissed the plaintiff's request for a streamlined trial. The court concluded that the complexity of the trial questions and the evidentiary burden did not justify the need for a streamlined process.

Takeaway

The introduction of streamlined trial rules in Alberta represents the continued shift in the judicial process following the Supreme Court of Canada's emphasis on summary proceedings in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, aiming to enhance efficiency in resolving disputes. However, recent ABKB decisions underscore the stringent criteria that applicants must meet to qualify for a streamlined trial. Successful applications may be limited to straightforward cases, as seen in Moore, while more complex disputes, like those in Arsenault, Hou and Bailey, illustrate that the Court prioritizes fair and just resolutions over expediency. Ultimately, these rulings emphasize the importance of ensuring that streamlined trials genuinely serve the interests of justice without compromising the thoroughness required in more complicated legal matters.