By Carline Petit-Homme, University of Alberta Law Student
Introduction
In 2024, Alberta introduced the streamlined trial process in an effort to improve access to justice by offering a faster and more affordable way to resolve disputes. However, over a year has passed since the amendments were made, and the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (ABKB) has only granted one case a streamlined trial. While the intended goal of the process is to provide a timely, efficient, and inexpensive alternative to traditional trials, the rigid application of the eligibility criteria undermines the very purpose of the streamlined trial.[1]
This overly strict approach has prevented many parties from benefiting from this much-needed tool for accessing justice, limiting its effectiveness in improving the justice system and making it inaccessible to those who need it most.
Background
The need for timely and affordable access to justice has been an ongoing challenge in the civil litigation system.[2] The Supreme Court of Canada addressed these issues in Hryniak v Mauldin,[3] which has played a pivotal role in reshaping civil litigation in the country. The decision highlighted growing concerns that the conventional trial process had become inefficient and out of reach for many litigants.[4] The ruling advocated for a “culture shift” away from prolonged, expensive trials and towards proportionate, timely, and cost-effective legal procedures, acknowledging that a full trial may not always be necessary to achieve a just outcome on the merits.[5] In response, Alberta implemented the summary trial process.[6]
Summary trials were intended to offer a shorter court proceeding by streamlining the evidentiary process for efficiency in situations where summary judgment would be insufficient but a full trial was not proportionate.[7] However, summary trials were underutilized due to significant risks for applicants—respondents could challenge their suitability up until the trial date, and judges could refuse to render a decision, leading to wasted time and costs.[8] Litigants were thus reluctant to use summary trials, which exacerbated delays, litigation expenses, and barriers to accessing justice.[9] In response to this issue and building on the principles established in Hryniak, the Alberta Rules of Court Committee consulted with the judiciary and legal profession starting in 2020 to develop the streamlined trial process.[10] In November 2023, the summary trial rules were repealed.[11]
The Streamlined Trial Process
On January 1, 2024, Alberta replaced the summary trial process with the streamlined trial system to provide a quicker and more cost-effective way to resolve legal disputes.[12] A streamlined trial is a simplified ABKB trial procedure under Rule 8.25(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court.[13]
Eligibility
A court must determine if a case is appropriate for a streamlined trial under Rule 8.25(1) by finding that:[14]
- a streamlined trial is necessary for a fair and just resolution; and,
- the trial is proportionate to the importance, complexity, financial stakes, and resources involved.
Unlike summary trials, cases are not automatically disqualified where they involve credibility issues, or require oral evidence or expert testimony.[15]
Process
To qualify for a streamlined trial, parties must obtain an order permitting the use of the streamlined trial process.[16]Courts must determine in advance whether a case qualifies for a streamlined trial. This marks a departure from the summary trial system where courts could refuse to rule, leaving litigants uncertain about the outcome.[17] This new system was intended to ensure that decisions on the suitability of a streamlined trial are made early, reducing the risk of wasted resources.[18]
Suitability
Streamlined trials are appropriate for simpler cases, such as claims for liquidated sums, property recovery disputes, document interpretation cases, minor personal injury claims under $100,000, and wrongful dismissal cases.[19] These cases rely primarily on written evidence (affidavits) and limited oral testimony.[20] The goal of the streamlined trial process is clear: it was designed to enhance judicial efficiency and improve access to justice for civil litigants by offering a quicker, more affordable alternative to traditional trials.
However, the high rejection rate of applications for a streamlined trial suggests that Alberta courts are overly cautious in approving streamlined trials. Recent ABKB decisions show that three out of four applications for streamlined trials have been denied, emphasizing the strict criteria for approval which raises issues of access to justice.
The Big Four: Alberta’s Application of the Test
The four ABKB decisions—Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership,[21] Moore v Turner,[22] Hou v Canadian North Inc.,[23] and, Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology[24] —demonstrate how this stringent interpretation has made it nearly impossible for parties to use the streamlined trial process, even in cases where it would promote efficiency and fairness. By placing undue emphasis on complexity and the necessity requirement, the courts have made streamlined trials largely inaccessible to those who could benefit most.
Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership
This wrongful dismissal case was the first reported streamlined trial process decision. The plaintiff sought severance pay, while the employer claimed just cause for termination.[25] Justice Armstrong denied the streamlined trial application, ruling it was not “necessary” to resolve the dispute, stressing that streamlined trials should only be granted when they significantly enhance efficiency or fairness, reinforcing the default preference for conventional trials.[26]
Although Justice Armstrong cited complexity as a barrier, the rigid necessity standard set the precedent for following cases meant that even relatively straightforward cases faced obstacles in using the streamlined process. This ruling set a high threshold, making it difficult for subsequent litigants to access a more efficient means of dispute resolution.
Moore v Turner
This case marked Alberta’s first streamlined trial. The dispute revolved around joint bank accounts and whether they belonged to an individual or an estate.[27] The matter had initially been scheduled for a summary trial, but after the Alberta Rules of Court changed, the plaintiff applied for the new streamlined trial process.
Justice Eamon approved the streamlined trial, citing several factors that made the case suitable for this approach.[28]While this decision confirmed the continuity between summary and streamlined trials, it also demonstrated that only cases with minimal procedural changes from summary trials would be considered. The judgment implies that streamlined trials will only be allowed when they align closely with past precedent, further narrowing their scope. A streamlined trial also seemed particularly appropriate in this case as the parties were quite elderly.
Hou v Canadian North Inc
In Hou,[29] multiple plaintiffs sought streamlined trials for wrongful dismissal claims, arguing that their relatively modest claims amount warranted an expedited process.[30] Justice Renke denied the application, citing complexity due to multiple legal and factual issues, numerous witnesses, and extensive evidence.[31] Justice Renke emphasized heightened the “necessity” requirement set out in Arsenault to now require the moving party to demonstrate that a streamlined trial is not just a potential method of achieving a fair result, but that it is the only way to resolve the case fairly and justly. The case raised an already high threshold even higher.[32]
Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology
In Bailey, the plaintiff sought a streamlined trial for a wrongful dismissal claim after Bailey took some chairs home from work, which he believed were being thrown out.[33] Justice Mah understood “Mr. Bailey’s desire to achieve litigation economy”[34] and the “inherent power imbalance that exists when a lone individual seeks to challenge the decision of a large institutional entity.”[35] Yet, Justice Mah refused to grant a streamlined trial holding that the complexity of the issues, particularly regarding credibility and the extensive documentary record (described as “3 inches thick”), meant that the case was not suitable for a streamlined trial.[36]
The plaintiff’s application failed to meet the high standards set for such trials.[37] Justice Mah’s decision aligns with the broader trend of judicial restraint in applying the streamlined trial process. Evidently, high documentary evidence volumes or credibility concerns effectively preclude access to streamlined trials, despite the process being designed to handle less complex disputes.
Barriers in Accessing Justice: The Problematic Interpretation of “Necessity” and “Proportionality”
The cases illustrate the ABKB’s increasingly narrow interpretation of necessity and proportionality.[38] Instead of considering whether a streamlined trial could provide an adequate resolution, the Court now requires it to be the only way to ensure fairness.[39] This stringent standard is inconsistent with the intent of streamlined trials, which were designed to offer a more efficient alternative to full trials, not just as a last resort.[40]
Similarly, the proportionality requirement is being applied in a way that excludes cases with even moderate complexity.[41] The strict interpretation of this proportionality requirement effectively limits the method to only the simplest cases, excluding disputes that may involve multiple issues or witnesses but are still relatively straightforward in comparison to a full trial.
The “necessity” and “proportionality” interpretation set an exceedingly high bar for litigants, as it dismisses the possibility that a streamlined trial could be sufficient for a fair outcome, even if it might be more cost-effective and efficient than a full trial.[42] In essence, the ABKB requires litigants to show that a streamlined trial is the exclusive means of achieving fairness, rather than considering it as an alternative that could serve the same purpose without the logistical burden of a full trial.[43]
The primary purpose behind the introduction of streamlined trials was to increase accessibility and efficiency within the justice system, particularly for individuals with less complex cases or lower monetary stakes. By restricting streamlined trials to only the most straightforward cases, the ABKB is creating significant barriers to access to justice. Plaintiffs with modest claims or limited resources face prolonged litigation and increased legal costs, even when a streamlined trial could have provided a timely and fair resolution.[44]
Conclusion
Alberta’s current approach to streamlined trials contradicts the Supreme Court’s directive in Hryniak, which calls for more proportionate and cost-effective legal procedures.[45] By applying an excessively high necessity and proportionality threshold, the courts are rendering streamlined trials practically useless, undermining access to justice and judicial efficiency.
To fulfill the purpose of streamlined trials, the ABKB must shift toward a more flexible and inclusive interpretation. Litigants should not have to prove that a streamlined trial is the only way to ensure fairness—rather, they should need to demonstrate that it is a viable and reasonable method for resolving the dispute efficiently. Without this shift, the promise of an accessible and efficient justice will remain unfulfilled, perpetuating unnecessary delays and costs in the legal system. Per Justice Karakatsanis, a “process is illusory unless it is also accessible — proportionate, timely and affordable,”[46] and, a “[p]rompt judicial resolution of legal disputes allows individuals to get on with their lives.”[47]
As the Alberta Court of Appeal has yet to weigh in on these issues, there remains hope that future rulings will provide clarification and a broader application of streamlined trials. Until then, the restrictive approach continues to hinder access to justice, disproportionately affecting those who need it most.
[1] Notice to the Profession and Public: Streamlined Trial Process – Civil (Non-Family) Actions, Alberta Court of King’s Bench, December 22, 2023; Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 at para 15; Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 28.
[2] Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 1; See generally, Hannam v Medicine Hat School District No. 76, 2020 ABCA 343 at para 46.
[3] Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.
[4] Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 1.
[5] Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at paras 1, 2; See also Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership by its general partner Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp. and Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp, 2024 ABKB 387 at para 5; Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 at para 26.
[6] Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 at paras 14-16, 26.
[7]Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 at paras 17-18, 26; Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 126/2023, r 7.3(4), 8.17; Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, Division 3, r 7.5-7.11 as repealed by Alberta Rules of Court Amendment Regulation, AR 126/2023. Note: The summary judgment is a separate process under the Alberta Rules of Court where one party brings an application to resolve a dispute without a trial on the basis there is no genuine issue for trial; See Windsor v Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd, 2014 ABCA 108 at para 14. An unsuccessful summary judgment application means that a trial is needed. See Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 126/2023, Division 2; See also Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at paras 73, 77.
[8] Benke v Loblaw Companies Limited, 2022 ABQB 461 at paras 6–7; Hannam v Medicine Hat School District No. 76, 2020 ABCA 343 at paras 46-48; Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership by its general partner Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp. and Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp, 2024 ABKB 387 at paras 5-10.
[9] Benke v Loblaw Companies Limited, 2022 ABQB 461 at paras 6–7.
[10] See Rules of Court Committee Request for Comments 2021-1.
[11] In November 2023 the Lieutenant Governor in Council approved Order in Council, 185/2023 which amended the Alberta Rules of Court. This amendment repealed repealing summary trials and replaced them with streamlined trials. In December 2023, the Court of King’s Bench issued a Notice to the Profession outlining the procedure for streamlined trials, which replaced the underutilized summary trial process see Notice to the Profession and Public: Streamlined Trial Process – Civil (Non-Family) Actions, Alberta Court of King’s Bench, December 22, 2023.
[12] Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, Division 3, r 7.5-7.11 as repealed by Alberta Rules of Court Amendment Regulation, AR 126/2023; Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 126/2023, Division 5, r 8.25.
[13] Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 126/2023, r 8.25(1).
[14] Notice to the Profession and Public: Streamlined Trial Process – Civil (Non-Family) Actions, Alberta Court of King’s Bench, December 22, 2023; Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 126/2023, r 8.25(1)(a)-(b).
[15] Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 126/2023, r 8.25(3). [Emphasis added]
[16] Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 126/2023, r 8.25(1). Note: While the process cannot be triggered by consent alone, party agreement on using the streamlined trial may support the application. Under Rule 8.25(1), the Court may order a streamlined trial on its own motion or upon application if the conditions are met.
[17] See e.g. Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 126/2023, r 8.31; Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, r 7.9.
[18] Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 126/2023, r 8.31.
[19] Notice to the Profession and Public: Streamlined Trial Process – Civil (Non-Family) Actions, Alberta Court of King’s Bench, December 22, 2023.
[20] See Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 126/2023, r 8.30 which outlines the procedure (affidavit evidence unless otherwise ordered).
[21] Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership by its general partner Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp. and Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp, 2024 ABKB 387.
[22] Moore v Turner, 2024 ABKB 435.
[23] Hou v Canadian North Inc, 2024 ABKB 549.
[24] Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563.
[25] Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership by its general partner Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp. and Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp, 2024 ABKB 387 at paras 1-2, 16, 20, 34, 36.
[26] Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership by its general partner Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp. and Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp, 2024 ABKB 387 at para 20.
[27] Moore v Turner, 2024 ABKB 435 at paras 1-4.
[28] Moore v Turner, 2024 ABKB 435 at paras 1-4.
[29] Hou v Canadian North Inc, 2024 ABKB 549.
[30] Hou v Canadian North Inc, 2024 ABKB 549 at para 81.
[31] Hou v Canadian North Inc, 2024 ABKB 549 at paras 54-57, 64-74, 81-85. For context, the defendants claimed the case involved complex legal and factual issues, extensive evidence, and many witnesses. The plaintiffs identified six key issues, including employment status, termination, and compensation. Defendants added issues like jurisdiction, limitations, and damage apportionment. Plaintiffs planned to call two witnesses per side, while defendants expected to call ten, including an expert.
[32] Hou v Canadian North Inc, 2024 ABKB 549 at paras 19-22.
[33] Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563 at paras 18-24.
[34] Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563
[35] Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563 at para 25.
[36] Additionally, the court clarified that an affidavit is not required when applying for a streamlined trial; the decision should be based on the pleadings and submissions alone see Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563 at paras 12-17.
[37] Early cases, including Bailey, show the streamlined trials may not be as widely applicable as initially anticipated.
[38] It is also worth noting that in Arsenault, the Court denied a streamlined trial despite acknowledging its potential benefits, reinforcing that a conventional trial is the default unless the applicant proves necessity. See Arsenault v Big Rock Brewery Limited Partnership by its general partner Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp. and Big Rock Brewery Operations Corp, 2024 ABKB 387 at para 20. Viewing trials as the default procedural, however, has been rejected by the Supreme Court and Alberta King’s Bench. See e.g., Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 25; Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 at paras 14; 20; Gordon Estate (Re), 2023 ABKB 132 at para 7; Hannam v Medicine Hat School District No. 76, 2020 ABCA 343at para 144.
[39] See Hou v Canadian North Inc, 2024 ABKB 549 at paras 19-21 where Justice Renke’s used Arsenault as authoritative in finding that the “necessity” test, is to be interpreted to mean that a streamlined trial must be the only way to achieve a fair and just result.
[40] See e.g. Notice to the Profession and Public: Streamlined Trial Process – Civil (Non-Family) Actions, Alberta Court of King’s Bench, December 22, 2023; Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 126/2023, r 8.31.
[41] See e.g. Bailey, where the Court found that a streamlined trial would not be proportionate due to the case’s complexity, even when there was no significant disagreement about the facts or the underlying legal issues. See Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563at paras 18- 24; 28. ex Hou v Canadian North Inc, 2024 ABKB 549 at para 82.
[42] In Hou v Canadian North Inc, 2024 ABKB 549 at para 81, Justice Renke noted that “[t]he amounts involved are not large,” yet the plaintiffs were still denied access to the streamlined trial process. Despite seeking an efficient resolution for modest claims, they were forced into a full trial, increasing costs and delaying justice. By emphasizing complexity over accessibility, the Court prioritized procedural rigidity over the streamlined trial’s goal of offering a faster, more affordable alternative—particularly disadvantaging litigants with limited resources.
[43] Furthermore, the requirement for an applicant to show that a streamlined trial is the only viable option for fairness, as was the case in Hou, risks excluding cases where a full trial would still be an undue burden for plaintiffs. See Hou v Canadian North Inc, 2024 ABKB 549 at paras 19-21. Individuals with limited resources or those who cannot afford the costs of a full trial may be especially disadvantaged by this approach, as they are denied an alternative process that could potentially lead to a more timely and cost-effective resolution. See e.g. Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563 at para 25. This approach contradicts the principles set out in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 1; Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 at paras 23-25.
[44] Recall Bailey, where the Justice Mah acknowledged Mr. Bailey personal circumstances and the inherent power imbalance between an individual seeking “to challenge the decision of a large institutional entity.” See Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563 at para 25.
The high standards are making it increasingly difficult for plaintiffs, like Mr. Bailey, to take advantage of this process, while it may have dealt with the reluctance issues from the summary trial process, it has inherently created its own issues based on how it has been interpreted by the courts.
[45] See Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 4. In Hryniak, the Court found that the Ontario Court of Appeal “placed too high a premium” on the full appreciation of the evidence criteria that can be gained from a conventional trial. Much like here in Alberta, the Court is placing too much of an emphasis necessity and proportionality criteria. This paired with the view of trials still being the default procedure, makes streamlined trial unattainable.
[46] Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 28.
[47] Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 25.