New Alberta Streamlined Trial Rules And Wrongful Dismissals: Regular Trial Is Still The Default Process

Litigation takes time and money. Effective legal counsel use various processes available to help clients achieve the best outcome in each case.

Summary trials are an important procedural option in litigation. In many cases, they can provide an efficient and quicker means to obtain a judgment. In January 2024, Alberta's old summary trial process was replaced with a "streamlined trial" process. The new rules introduce two key changes:

1. Parties are no longer required to argue both suitability and the merits of the underlying litigation at the application. Instead, the Court will decide up front on the suitability of a streamlined trial. If the Court grants a streamlined trial, the matter will proceed on its merits with a judgment at the conclusion of the streamlined trial. This introduces significant cost savings for parties wishing to apply for a streamlined trial.
2. The test for a streamlined trial is no longer whether the matter can be decided using a streamlined process; it is whether it is "necessary" to use a streamlined process to have the matter fairly and justly resolved.

The first reported decision on the streamlined trial process is a wrongful dismissal matter: 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.

The Plaintiff (former President and CEO) sued his employer for wrongful dismissal, seeking pay in lieu of notice and aggravated and punitive damages. The employer alleged that it terminated the Plaintiff with just cause for willful misconduct, gross negligence, misrepresentation of financial information, concealing material information, dishonesty, and insubordination amongst other allegations.

The default process is the regular trial process unless the moving party is able to establish that the streamlined process is required or essential for the matter to be fairly and justly resolved. The Court went on to list circumstances where a streamlined trial may be considered necessary:

1. Where the streamlined trial will create a more efficient process by eliminating unnecessary steps and reducing overall delay in the resolution of the dispute.
2. Where the streamlined trial will result in a more cost-effective process for the parties.
3. Where the streamlined trial will enhance the administration of justice by making more efficient use of court resources and provide litigants with a more accessible and timely dispute resolution process.
4. Where the streamlined trial will result in a more sharply focused process and the elimination of complexities in the form of interim applications that do not bear on the ultimate resolution of the real issues in dispute.
5. Where it would be unjust to require the parties to proceed to a full trial, considering the value and complexity of the dispute.
6. Where the streamlined trial process will simplify the proceeding to make it easier for the parties to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their positions and thereby potentially reach a resolution without the need for a trial.

Ultimately, the Court determined that a streamlined trial was not necessary or proportionate for this wrongful dismissal matter. Given the significant number of financial records and witnesses, the Court found that there were no efficiencies for the Court or the parties in the streamlined process. Rather, the parties could be ready for a standard trial by the time they filed affidavits and completed cross-examinations for all identified witnesses. A standard trial would be more efficient when considering the presentation of evidence to the Court, instead of having the Court review volumes of affidavits and transcripts prior to a streamlined trial.

The Court noted the complexity of the matter, the lack of urgency to the parties, the lack of prejudice likely to arise by proceeding with a standard trial, and the lack of apparent cost savings in a streamlined process.

Key Takeaways

Over the last few years, we have seen an increasing number of Plaintiff applications for summary judgment and expedited trials in employment matters. A streamlined process may still be best for many employment cases under the new rules; however, not all matters are ripe for these types of applications.

There are circumstances where a standard trial is still the preferred process for resolving disputes, even if one of the parties request a streamlined process. That is especially true now, considering the high bar of "necessity" in these new rules.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.