Alberta's New Streamlined Trial Rules: First Court Decision Interpreting the New Rules

On June 27, 2024, the Court of King's Bench of Alberta issued the first decision interpreting the new streamlined trial process in Arsenault v. Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership by its general partner Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp. and Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp (Big Rock). This decision provides helpful guidance about the factors to be considered by courts when assessing the appropriateness of a streamlined trial. 

In January 2024, the Alberta Rules of Court (Rules) were amended to repeal and replace the summary trial rules with new streamlined trial rules. The streamlined trial process, as set out in Part 8, Division 5 of the Rules, addresses inefficiencies in the former summary trial process. 

In the former summary trial process, the court heard the summary trial before deciding if this was the appropriate process for the particular matter. In the new streamlined trial process, the court is required to determine if a streamlined trial is appropriate before the matter proceeds to trial. If the court decides that the matter is suitable for a streamlined trial, the trial proceeds on the merits and the trial judge is required to issue a judgment. The streamlined trial process is summarized in our January 2024 Blakes Bulletin: Alberta Replaces Summary Trials With Streamlined Trials.

BACKGROUND 

In Big Rock, the applicant filed a wrongful dismissal claim against Big Rock Brewery, alleging that his employment was terminated without just cause or reasonable notice. Big Rock Brewery asserted in its defence that there was just cause for the termination. 

The parties exchanged affidavits of records. Thereafter, the applicant applied for a streamlined trial. 

ANALYSIS

 The Court considered the two-part test for a streamlined trial as set out in Rule 8.25(1) of the Rules. That test requires that the court is satisfied that the streamlined trial is:

1. Necessary for the purpose of the action to be fairly and justly resolved; and
2. Proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, the amounts involved and the resources that can reasonably be allocated to resolving the dispute.

The party applying for a streamlined trial must establish that it is necessary and proportionate to resolve the dispute. 

The Court in Big Rock outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors in which a streamlined trial may be found to be “necessary.” These are circumstances in which a streamlined trial will:

1. Create a more efficient process by eliminating unnecessary steps and reducing delay;
2. Result in a more cost-effective process;
3. Enhance the administration of justice by making more efficient use of court resources; 
4. Result in a more sharply focused process and eliminate interim applications; or 
5. Simplify the proceeding to make it easier for the parties to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their positions.

The Court held that, in the circumstances of Big Rock, the streamlined trial process was not "necessary" for the Court to fairly and justly resolve the wrongful dismissal claim. In this case, significant financial records were at issue, and affidavits would have been required from several witnesses. This would have resulted in multiple days of questioning. These processes would require significant time and resources from the parties and the court. The Court held that this was not a case in which efficiencies would result from the streamlined trial process.

Accordingly, the Court held that the applicant did not establish that a streamlined trial was “necessary.” The application was dismissed. 

The Court provided additional analysis about the “proportionality” component of the test. The Court commented that decisions about the appropriateness of summary trials are instructive in assessing the proportionality of streamlined trials. Factors to be considered include, for example, the amounts at issue, the complexity and urgency of the matter, the cost of trial, the need to cross-examine witnesses in court, whether questioning is required, and whether the resolution of the matter will depend on findings of credibility.

Notably, the Court commented that credibility issues can certainly be resolved in a streamlined trial, particularly when the streamlined trial order provides for oral evidence and cross-examination. Pursuant to the new Rule 8.25(3), the streamlined trial should not be considered to be a disproportionate process solely because credibility issues may arise. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Big Rock provides welcome guidance about the test for streamlined trials. Key takeaways are as follows:

1. The party that applies for a streamlined trial bears the onus of establishing that the streamlined trial is both necessary and proportionate.
2. The factors considered in the jurisprudence about summary trials are instructive in the court’s assessment of whether a streamlined trial is appropriate.
3. Credibility issues are not fatal to an application for a streamlined trial and should be considered as part of the court’s proportionality assessment.

Accordingly, and as practical matter, this decision affirms the usefulness of summary tools to resolve disputes given delays in the courts.

For further information, please contact: 

or any other member of our Litigation & Dispute Resolution group.