The streamlined trial process took effect on January 1, 2024. This process was designed to make civil litigation in Alberta more efficient, accessible, and cost-effective. However, nearly a year into its implementation, the rollout of the streamlined trial has sparked both cautious optimism and interesting debate within the legal community.
The Need for Change:
The decision to implement a streamlined trial process was rooted in the recognition that a full trial can be impractical or financially unfeasible for many disputes. The existing challenges often force litigants to forego justice due to the intensive nature of traditional trial procedures.
In 2020, the Alberta Rules of Court Committee identified several issues with the existing summary trial rules, leading to the need for change. Two crucial points emerged from discussions:[1]
- The need for more certainty in the mode of trial at an earlier stage, as the existing procedure allowed the defendant to object to a summary trial up to the eve of the trial.
- The importance of ensuring that the trial judge makes a final and binding decision at the end of the summary trial to enhance the utility of the process.
The change to a streamlined trial process was made to address these shortcomings, provide more certainty on the mode of trial at an earlier stage and ensure final and binding decisions. Ultimately, the goal was to create a practical and workable procedure that maintains a balance between the competing objectives of affordability and justice in the legal system.
How Streamlined Trials Work:
Parties involved in a civil or family case in the Court of King’s Bench can apply for a streamlined trial, or the court may decide a streamlined trial is the best option.[2] The court will have discretion in opting for streamlined trials based on factors such as the potential for a fair resolution, case complexity, financial significance, and available court resources, presenting a third, more efficient option alongside regular and jury trials.
The streamlined trial process emphasizes written evidence over oral evidence. Parties involved in family and civil cases share the responsibility of preparing court materials collaboratively. This involves identifying key issues, agreeing on relevant facts, and providing necessary records.
Implementation:
To qualify for a streamlined trial, Rule 8.25(1) requires:
- Necessity: The process must be necessary for the action to be fairly and justly resolved.[3]
- Proportionality: The process must be proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, the amounts involved, and the resources reasonably allocated to resolving the dispute.[4]
While the concept of streamlined trials is promising, recent decisions highlight the judiciary’s reluctance to employ them at any and every turn or to deviate from traditional trials in all circumstances:
- Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership, 2024 ABKB 397
This was the first reported Alberta decision on streamlined trials and the court emphasized that regular trials remain the default, with streamlined trials reserved for cases where they are “required or essential” to achieve a fair and just resolution.[5] - Moore v Turner, 2024 ABKB 435
In this estate case, the court allowed a streamlined trial, noting that the matter involved limited witnesses, a straightforward dispute, and low damages.[6] - Hou v Canadian North Inc., 2024 ABKB 549
The court reaffirmed that a streamlined trial must not simply be one of several ways to resolve a dispute but must be the only viable method to achieve justice in the matter.[7] - Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563
Even though wrongful dismissal actions were listed as one example of matters that may be suitable for a streamlined trial, this wrongful dismissal claim was deemed unsuitable for a streamlined trial due to the complexity of credibility issues and the number of witnesses required.[8]
Thoughts from the Legal Community:
The legal community has expressed mixed views on the implementation of the streamlined trial. Supporters see it as a tool that can increase access to justice and reduce the burden on Alberta’s courts. Critics argue that the cautious approach has limited the process’s potential. As articulated in Arsenault and Hou, the emphasis on the necessity test sets a high bar for eligibility. Others point out that the requirement for pre-trial agreements and the reliance on affidavit evidence may not be feasible in disputes involving credibility issues or complex fact patterns.
Conclusion:
The streamlined trial represents an important step forward in Alberta’s quest for a more efficient and accessible legal system. Yet, its impact will depend on how courts and litigants navigate its challenges. As more decisions are rendered, Alberta’s courts may refine their approach, potentially expanding the scope of cases deemed appropriate for streamlined trials. Until then, the process remains an intriguing but carefully regulated tool for achieving justice in appropriate cases.
Note: This article provides general commentary and is in no way intended to replace the need to consult with a legal professional concerning the specific circumstances of your situation. This article should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice.
[1] Rules of Court Committee Request for Comments 2021-1: Streamlined Trials, page 1-2
[2] Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, s 8.25(1)
[3] Ibid, s 8.25(1)(a)
[4] Ibid, s 8.25(1)(b)
[5] Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership, 2024 ABKB 387, at para 20
[6] Moore v Turner, 2024 ABKB 435, at para 48 & 49
[7] Hou v Canadian North Inc, 2024 ABKB 549, at para 19
[8] Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563, at para 6 & 7
