Keeping It (Not So) Simple: Streamlined Trials in Alberta

October 16, 2024

Written By Tyler McDonough and Kassandra Devolin

On December 22, 2023, the Court of King's Bench issued a Notice to the Profession setting out the procedure for adjudicating a civil action by a new process known as a “streamlined trial”, which replaces the old and under-utilized summary trial procedure.

Since January 1, 2024, civil litigants in Alberta have been able to access this new summary resolution process. It is ultimately up to the Court whether an action is appropriate for a streamlined trial. Pursuant to the Rules of Court, a streamlined trial can be directed if it is (1) necessary for the purpose of the action to be fairly and justly resolved, and (2) proportionate to the complexity of the issues, the amounts involved and the resources that can reasonably be allocated to resolving the dispute.

Around one year into Alberta’s experiment with streamlined trials, the Court has now released a few decisions that provide much needed guidance on the process:

Arsenault v Big Rock

In Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership, 2024 ABKB 387 (Arsenault), the Court confirmed that regular trials remain the default for resolving civil claims in Alberta. The Court compared the new streamlined trial procedure to the old summary trial process, stating that the test is "no longer whether the matter can be decided using a streamlined process; it is whether it is necessary to […] have the matter fairly and justly resolved."

Moore v Turner

In Moore v Turner, 2024 ABKB 435, the Court found that an estate action could proceed by streamlined trial, after being scheduled for determination under the old summary trial process. Interestingly, the Court did not apply the strict “necessity” approach set out in Arsenault. The Court instead concluded that the action could proceed via streamlined trial because the defendant would not be prejudiced by continuing with the summary process, and because the matter could be determined based on affidavit evidence and admissions from pre-trial questioning.

The Court listed several factors that supported using a streamlined trial, including the low quantum of the claim, the limited number of witnesses and the simplicity of the dispute.

Hou v Canadian North Inc

In Hou v Canadian North Inc, 2024 ABKB 549 (Hou), the Court adopted the necessity approach from Arsenault, finding that an application for a streamlined trial should not be granted if the "moving party shows only that [it is] one way of achieving a fair and just result."

Relying heavily on the Notice to the Profession, dated December 22, 2023, which introduced the new process, the Court declined to order a streamlined trial because the matter had numerous and complex issues, a limited agreed statement of facts, an extensive documentary record, multiple witnesses, and required a significant amount of time for oral evidence and arguments. The Court particularly focused on whether a fair and just resolution could be achieved by relying primarily on affidavit evidence. The Court noted the importance of having a “lead affiant”, wherein a single witness presents all, or most, of a party’s evidence.

Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology

In Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563, the Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a streamlined trial after applying the objectives from Arsenault and the “exclusivity” test from Hou. The Court found that a streamlined trial would not be a proportionate process due to the numerous credibility issues, the complexity of the case, and the allocation of resources required.

The Court further confirmed that litigants are not required to file affidavits to argue why a matter is suitable for a streamlined trial. The Court stated that this is a matter for argument, which is based on the Court record and the submissions of the parties.

Takeaways

Regular trials remain the default process for resolving civil claims in Alberta. Based on Arsenault and Hou, the Court may adopt a strict reading of the “necessity” element when considering whether an action should proceed via streamlined trial. Under this interpretation, a party cannot take advantage of the new process unless it is the only way of achieving a fair and just result in the action. This is a narrow reading of the Rules that will limit the accessibility of streamlined trials going forward.

Available case-law confirms that, before applying for a streamlined trial, parties should carefully consider whether their action is appropriate for a streamlined trial. If the matter appears to satisfy the criteria for a streamlined trial, then the applicant should ensure they structure their submissions in a way that will encourage the Court to grant their application. This includes proceeding with a robust agreed statement of facts, a limited number of witnesses, and presenting evidence via a “lead affiant”, as discussed above.

Authors