The Plaintiff and Defendant each brought Summary Judgment Applications pursuant to Rule 7.3 (individually, the “SJ Application” and, collectively, the “SJ Applications”). However, before the SJ Applications were scheduled, the Plaintiff, at a Conference held pursuant to Rule 4.10, sought an Order that the SJ Applications be converted to a Streamlined Trial (the “Application”). The Defendant opposed the Application.

The Plaintiff’s position was that it met the test for a Streamlined Trial under Rule 8.25(1) and that applying the principles and purpose of the Rules as set out in Rule 1.2, the Court should direct the SJ Applications to proceed by Streamlined Trial instead. The Defendant argued that the SJ Applications were the most expeditious manner to proceed and that it had no intention to abandon its SJ Application or appeal rights under Rule 6.14. Justice Reed noted that Rules 8.28 and 8.29 inform the steps required, or that may be required, to prepare the record and schedule a Streamlined Trial.

The Court held that this was not a situation where the parties disputed the mode of Trial pursuant to Rule 8.27, but rather a situation where one party to the competing SJ Applications sought to bypass that process in favour of a Streamlined Trial. After setting out the principles of statutory interpretation, Reed J. held that the relief sought by the Plaintiff was not contemplated by Rule 8.25 and therefore the Application must be dismissed. The Court went on to comment that even if it was incorrect about the interpretation of Rule 8.25, the Plaintiff did not meet the threshold necessity or proportionality requirements as the Action may well be resolved by the SJ Applications.