Effective January 1, 2024, Alberta\u2019s streamlined trial<\/em> process under Rule 8.25 of the Alberta Rules of Court<\/em> will replace summary trials.[1]<\/a> This reform is potentially significant for businesses seeking efficient and cost-effective ways to resolve disputes \u2013 provided your matter is appropriate for resolution by way of streamlined trial. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the recent decision of Hou v. Canadian North Inc<\/em>, 2024 ABKB 549 (\u201cHou<\/em>\u201d), the Alberta Court of King\u2019s Bench analyzed how an application for a streamlined trial will operate under the \u201cnew\u201d Rule 8.25 and clarified the test for determining when a streamlined trial will be appropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Streamlined trials are designed to simplify litigation for cases that do not require full-length trials. The goal is to reduce procedural steps, minimize costs, and deliver quicker outcomes for parties, making this an attractive option for businesses facing moderate-value and lower-complexity disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Notice to the Profession and Public #2023-02 (\u201cNPP<\/strong>\u201d) outlines the new streamlined trial process, including various procedural and evidentiary guidelines. The NPP also details the types of cases that will often be suitable for the streamlined trial process, namely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rule 8.25 sets out a two-part test for determining whether a streamlined trial is appropriate. The applicant must show both necessity <\/em>and proportionality<\/em>:[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n 8.25(1) The Court, on application by a party or on the Court\u2019s own motion, may order or direct that a court action be resolved by a streamlined trial if the Court is satisfied that<\/p>\n (a) it is necessary for the purpose of the action to be fairly and justly resolved, and<\/strong><\/p>\n (b) it is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, the amounts involved and the resources that can reasonably be allocated to resolving the dispute<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n The Rule further provides that:<\/p>\n\n\n 8.25(3) A streamlined trial shall not be considered as a disproportionate process solely because<\/strong><\/p>\n (a) issues of credibility may arise,<\/strong><\/p>\n (b) some oral evidence may be required at the trial,<\/p>\n (c) cross\u2011examination of some witnesses may be required, or<\/p>\n (d) expert evidence may be introduced.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n In other words, a streamlined trial can be appropriate despite <\/em>the presence of any one of the factors in Rule 8.25(3)(a)-(d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A streamlined trial must be \u201cnecessary for the purpose of the action to be fairly and justly resolved\u201d.[4]<\/a> Necessity need not be established \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt or to a certainty, but only on a balance of probabilities\u201d.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n For a streamlined trial to be necessary, a judge must conclude that a streamlined trial is the only<\/em> means of achieving a fair and just resolution of the matter.[6]<\/a> It is not enough for a streamlined trial to have the potential<\/em> to achieve a fair and just result, nor is it enough to show that a streamlined trial is one way <\/em>of achieving a fair and just result.[7]<\/a> The term necessity \u201cimports exclusivity, the identification of the single means of achieving the fair and just result\u201d.[8]<\/a> Practically, necessity could be established by showing \u201cthat an action can be fairly and justly resolved by streamlined trial but not<\/em> by the ordinary trial process\u201d.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Necessity must be assessed in relation to the particular action.[10]<\/a> Factors relevant to this analysis include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n A streamlined trial may<\/em> be found to be necessary if it would:<\/p>\n\n\n\n A streamlined trial may also be necessary if it would be unjust to require the parties to proceed to a full trial, given the value and complexity of the dispute.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n A streamlined trial must also be \u201cproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, the amounts involved and the resources that can reasonably be allocated to resolving the dispute\u201d.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Renke first analyzed proportionality with respect to the issues and amounts involved in an action. On this point, proportionality \u201cmay be missed by excess or defect\u201d.[15]<\/a> In other words, a streamlined trial may be disproportionate if it provides insufficient procedural mechanisms to address, e.g., the complexity of the issues involved.[16]<\/a> Similarly, a full trial may be disproportionate if it would impose excessive procedural or expense burdens on the parties given, e.g., simple legal issues or a low claim amount.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Next, Justice Renke analyzed proportionality with respect to \u201cresources that can reasonably be allocated to resolving the dispute\u201d.[18]<\/a> Here, \u201cresources\u201d includes the time and money of the litigants, but also the publicly funded Court resources.[19]<\/a> Justice Renke\u2019s analysis focused largely on the latter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A full trial may be disproportionate if it imposes excessive burdens on court resources given, for example, the issues and amounts at stake.[20]<\/a> However, because streamlined trials are decided largely on the written record, a streamlined trial can also<\/em> impose excessive burdens on court resources. If the judicial review of the written record would result in a greater expenditure of court resources than a full trial, a streamlined trial may be disproportionate.[21]<\/a> While a streamlined may save two or three days of trial time, that savings could be more than offset by the time the judge must spend reviewing the written record.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Renke also identified various features which, if present, may make an action inappropriate for a streamlined trial:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Renke, in applying the above law to the facts of Hou<\/em>, found that nearly all of the factors analyzed weighed against necessity and proportionality. Of note, the scope of agreed facts was limited,[23]<\/a> there were significant issues of credibility,[24]<\/a> and the documentary record was large.[25]<\/a> Ultimately, it was determined that a streamlined trial would not<\/em> permit a fair and just resolution of the issues, and the Plaintiffs\u2019 applications were dismissed.[26]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The analysis and test set out in the Hou<\/em> decision set a high bar to meet in order to succeed on a streamlined trial application. Necessity will be particularly difficult for future applicants to prove, given that they must show that a streamlined trial is the sole means<\/em> to achieve a fair and just resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is notable that, of the four reported Court of King\u2019s Bench decisions on streamlined trial applications, only one application was successful,[27]<\/a> and in that case, the parties had previously agreed that summary trial was appropriate (prior to the Rules<\/em> amendment).[28]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n In general, a streamlined trial will likely be suitable where the issues are straightforward and limited in number, the claim is for a low amount (relatively speaking), and limited in-court testimony is required. A streamlined trial is unlikely to be suitable where significant in-court testimony is required, the issues are numerous and\/or complex, or the evidentiary record is large. Of course, each case must be assessed individually, according to its own facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you or your organization require assistance or advice regarding a streamlined trial application, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Commercial Litigation<\/a> group. Our team of litigation experts can help to explore your options and ensure your legal strategy is as efficient and impactful as your business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/a> See Alberta Rules of Court Amendment Regulation<\/em>, Alta Reg 126\/2023, s. 11, as set out in Order in Council 185\/2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a> Kenneth Nielsen & D. Blair Nixon, \u201cNotice to the Profession and Public: Streamlined Trial Process \u2013 Civil (Non-Family) Actions\u201d (22 December 2023), online: Alberta Courts <\/em>(pdf) <albertacourts.ca\/docs\/default-source\/qb\/npp\/notice-to-the-profession-and-public-streamlined-trial-process-family-actions.pdf?sfvrsn=3bfa2c82_4>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3]<\/a> Alberta Rules of Court<\/em>, Alta Reg 124\/2010, R 8.25(1) [\u201cRules<\/em>\u201d].<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4]<\/a> Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [5]<\/a> Hou v. Canadian North Inc<\/em>, 2024 ABKB 549 at para 19 [\u201cHou<\/em>\u201d].<\/p>\n\n\n\n [6]<\/a> Ibid<\/em> at para 19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [7]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 21.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [8]<\/a> Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [9]<\/a> Ibid<\/em> at para 22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [10]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 23.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [11]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 24.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [12]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 25, citing Arsenault v. Big Rock Brewery<\/em>, 2024 ABKB 387 at para 22 [\u201cArsenault<\/em>\u201d].<\/p>\n\n\n\n [13]<\/a> Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [14]<\/a> Rules<\/em>, supra <\/em>note 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [15]<\/a> Hou, supra <\/em>note 5 at para 29.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [16]<\/a> Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [17]<\/a> Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [18]<\/a> Ibid<\/em> at para 30. See Rules, supra <\/em>note 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [19]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at paras 31-32.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [20]<\/a> Ibid<\/em> at para 33.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [21]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at paras 34-35.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [22]<\/a> Ibid<\/em> at para 37, citing Arsenault, supra <\/em>note 12 at para 32.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [23]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 59.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [24]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 75.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [25]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at paras 83-85.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [26]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at paras 93 and 97.<\/p>\n\n\n\nBackground<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
The test for streamlined trials<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
The Court\u2019s analysis in Hou <\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Necessity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Proportionality<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Features of actions inappropriate for streamlined trial<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Application to the facts<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Takeaways<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n