The Alberta Court of King’s Bench introduced streamlined trials in 2024 to replace summary trials, and four cases help us interpret the new rules.
This article summarizes the status of streamlined trials in Alberta. Streamlined trials were introduced in Alberta at the beginning of 2024. They replace the old Summary Trial process. The goal is to provide a faster and more affordable way to resolve legal issues. So far, there have been four cases dealing with the availability of streamlined trials.
What Are Streamlined Trials?
A Streamlined Trial is a simplified Court of King’s Bench trial procedure under the Alberta Rules of Court. A party can apply to have a matter decided by streamlined trial under Rule 8.25(1) where it is “necessary” to have the matter fairly and justly resolved and “proportionate” to the issues, amounts involved, and money that should be spent on the matter.
Streamlined trials differ from regular trials, mainly in terms of the evidence that is allowed. Evidence in a streamlined trial comes mostly from written affidavits, with some verbal evidence taken in the courtroom. Evidence in a regular trial is mostly verbal, and is taken in the courtroom.
What Changed from Summary Trials?
Streamlined trials replaced summary trials at the start of 2024. Summary trials were always intended as a less costly and more efficient process than a conventional trial. Many lawyers resisted using summary trials – the way the Rules worked, you had to spend a lot of time and money preparing for the summary trial before a decision on whether the matter would be allowed to go forward that way.
The streamlined trial procedure allows parties to have the court determine if a matter is appropriate for a streamlined trial prior to the trial’s date. This seems intended to reduce lawyers’ resistance to using these more efficient trial processes.
How The Streamlined Trial Rules Have Been Interpreted So Far
There appear to be four reported cases interpreting the streamlined trial rules so far.
Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership, 2024 ABKB 387 is the first reported Alberta decision on streamlined trials. This was a wrongful dismissal case where the employee was suing for severance pay and the employer argued it had just cause for dismissal. Justice Armstrong decided the matter was not appropriate for streamlined trial because the streamlined trial process was not “necessary” in this case. The court said that if a streamlined trial was not shown to be necessary, then a conventional trial was the default.
Moore v Turner, 2024 ABKB 435 was the first decision in Alberta to proceed with a streamlined trial. The issue in the case was whether some joint bank accounts belonged to an individual or the estate of a deceased person. The matter had previously been scheduled as a summary trial. The summary trial process was eliminated before that happened, so the court considered if it was also appropriate for a streamlined trial. Justice Eamon found that the tests for summary trial and streamlined trial were similar and that the case was one that was “suitable for determination on affidavit evidence.” The reasoning in this case did not seem affected by the word “necessary” in the new streamlined trial rules.
Hou v Canadian North Inc., 2024 ABKB 549 is a recent reported Alberta decision dealing with streamlined trials. The defendant and plaintiff legal counsel disagreed about the complexity of the case, the likely number of witnesses and the trial time. Justice Renke denied the application to proceed by streamlined trial on the basis that it was not necessary or proportionate. He indicated that the issues went beyond a typical wrongful dismissal case and there would be substantial evidence required. He cited both Moore and Aresenault, but relied more heavily on the reasoning from Arsenault – that the applicant must show that a streamlined trial is “necessary”.
Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563 is the most recent reported Alberta decision dealing with streamlined trials. This is a wrongful dismissal case where the employer is arguing just cause for dismissal. Justice Mah denied the application on the basis that there were too many central issues which would require credibility contests, and because there was already a “3 inch thick” documentary record. The Court also provided some direction about streamlined trial applications. The Court pointed out that an affidavit is not required for an application to set something down for streamlined trial. The Court also suggested that an affidavit is not even helpful for these applications because the Court is supposed to base these decisions on the pleadings and submissions of the parties.
My Take
The cases on the availability of streamlined trials are disappointing to me as an employment lawyer who represents many employees. So far, the cases suggest that streamlined trials are a bit harder to qualify for than summary trials were. It is surprising to me that the cases have developed this way.
Lawyers, and some judges, criticized the former summary trial procedure. The way it operated under the Rules made it too risky and uncertain for lawyers to use. Summary trial procedure was not being used very much, which was a major catalyst for the call to replace it.
It is too early to say for sure, but based on the development of the cases so far, I suspect lawyers will want to use the streamlined trial procedure even less than they wanted to use the summary trial procedure. The Alberta Court of Appeal will also surely weigh in at some point, hopefully clarifying the test for the availability of streamlined trial.
I was legal counsel for the plaintiff in the Hou case. I had written 80% of this article’s first draft before the Hou decision came out, but I had to include a summary of it because there are so few cases on this subject. My commentary would not have been substantially different if I would have published prior to the Hou decision being released. I also included a summary of Bailey, because that too came out right before the planned publishing date.
Looking for more information?
Looking for articles like this one to be delivered right to your inbox? SUBSCRIBE NOW!
DISCLAIMER The information in this article was correct at time of publishing. The law may have changed since then. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawNow or the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta.
About Joel Fairbrother
