Moore v Turner, 2024 ABKB 435 (Eamon J) appears to be the first decision in Alberta to proceed as a streamlined trial.
This decision is obviously important, because I believe there is only one other reported decision considering the issue of appropriateness of a matter for streamlined trial, and in that case it was not considered appropriate.
This particular case is not an employment law case, but it will be potentially important in employment law matters because of how few decisions there are on streamlined trials so far.
Facts
The following were some of the pertinent facts summarized by the ABKB:
- The issue in the case was whether some joint bank accounts belonged to an individual or the estate of a deceased person
- The matter had been preliminarily scheduled, previously, to be heard by way of summary trial. However, prior to the scheduled summary trial, the summary trial process was eliminated and streamlined trials replaced them under the Alberta Rules of Court
- The preliminary summary trial order had set out a detailed litigation plan for evidence and written submissions and set a trial date. It was a preliminary order because under the summary trial rules, only the judge hearing the trial could make a final determination about whether a matter was appropriate for a summary trial
- On the day that had been preliminarily scheduled for summary trial (in 2024, after summary trials no longer existed), the Plaintiff sought an order that this matter was appropriate for the new streamlined trial process, and the Court considered this question
Analysis / Conclusion
Justice Eamon went through the analysis for what matters had been appropriate for summary trial and what matters are now appropriate for streamlined trial, noting that the test is “similar”, as follows:
[17] Under the summary trial rules, the test for whether a summary trial is appropriate is as follows:
- [9] As stated in JN v GJK, 2004 ABCA 394, 361 AR 177 at para 40 “the test for whether a summary trial is appropriate is twofold: 1) can the court decide disputed questions of fact on affidavits or by other proceedings authorized by the Rules for summary trial?; and 2) would it be unjust to decide the issues in such a way?” Courts may consider a number of factors in determining the suitability of a summary trial: […] One of these factors is whether the resolution will depend upon findings of credibility […]
[18] The concepts of fairness and justice include the proportionality principle -that the process is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result (Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 at paras 16 and 21). The concept of proportionality is reflected by many of the suitability factors discussed in the cases cited in the above passage from SHN, such as amount involved, the cost of taking a matter to a full trial, and delay considerations.
[19] The test for a streamlined trial is similar:
8.25(1) The Court, on application by a party or on the Court’s own motion, may order or direct that a court action be resolved by a streamlined trial if the Court is satisfied that
(a) it is necessary for the purpose of the action to be fairly and justly resolved, and
(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.
[…]
(3) A streamlined trial shall not be considered as a disproportionate process solely because
(a) issues of credibility may arise,
(b) some oral evidence may be required at the trial,
(c) cross‑examination of some witnesses may be required, or
(d) expert evidence may be introduced.
Justice Eamon then went on to conclude that this matter was appropriate for streamlined trial, reasoning as follows:
[47] First, the Defendant is not in any way prejudiced by continuing the agreed-on summary trial as a streamlined trial under the amended rules. Whether called a streamlined trial or summary trial, the present case was, and remains, suitable for determination on affidavit evidence supplemented by admissions in pre-trial questioning.
[48] Second:
(a) the amount involved is relatively low in light of the cost of litigation;
(b) the number of potential witnesses is small;
(c) the matter is not complex;
(d) there are specific requirements of burden of proof and corroboration that protect the Estate’s interests;
(e) the matter is long standing given the trial of the issue was directed more than 4 years 3 months before the trial;
(f) both sides had a fair opportunity to put forward evidence and neither have identified any potential evidence for which they have not had a fair opportunity to adduce;
(g) the parties are elderly and the matter should be resolved without further delay;
(h) the evidence in the record, in view of the applicable presumption of resulting trust and the corroboration requirement, is sufficient for a streamlined trial.
[49] Consequently, I am satisfied that the matter satisfies the requirements of fairness, justice, and proportionality set out in Rule 8.25(1).
My Take
I believe this is the first case in Alberta where a matter has been allowed to proceed by way of streamlined trial, which makes it an important case.
The reasoning in this case appears to be a nod towards using the caselaw related to summary trial for consideration of whether something is appropriate for streamlined trial, although it is certainly possible it could be interpreted more narrowly than that. Still, this does seem to be a bit of a different take than was apparent in other recent Alberta caselaw which seemed to suggest that it would be much harder to qualify for streamlined trial because of the word “necessary” in rule 8.25 (1).
This is a case where the parties had previously agreed to proceed by summary trial and it had been preliminarily ordered to proceed that way. These factual and procedural realities might make the reasoning in this case vulnerable to being distinguished for use in future cases.
Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession. These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice. If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly.
Bow River Law is a team of knowledgeable, skilled and experienced employment lawyers handling employment law, human rights (discrimination) and labour law matters. Bow River Law is based in Calgary but we are Alberta’s Workforce Lawyers.
