The matter involved a claim for wrongful termination of the Plaintiff by the Defendant. The Plaintiff brought an Application for a Streamlined Trial, pursuant to Rule 8.26.

The Streamlined Trial process was contrasted against the process for a Summary Judgment, which requires no merit to a claim, and Summary Trials, which were available to determine an issue, question, or Action until Rule 7.5 was repealed.

Streamlined Trials were added as an option pursuant to Rules 8.25-8.27 in January 2024. The Court confirmed that, as part of an Application for a Streamlined Trial, an Applicant is not required to provide an Affidavit addressing why the matter is suitable for a Streamlined Trial. The appropriateness of a Streamlined Trial is based on the pleadings and submissions of the parties. The Court also noted that the streamlined Trial process eliminates the prior issue with Summary Trials, which rendered a decision on the appropriateness of Summary Trial at the end of the proceeding. With Streamlined Trial, there is a decision up front on the suitability of the process. Once determined to be suitable, the proceeding can continue on the merits and Judgment can be granted, pursuant to Rule 8.31.

Justice Armstrong went through the two-part test for a Streamlined Trial under Rule 8.25, which requires that the Court be satisfied that: (1) a Streamlined Trial is necessary for the purpose of the Action to be fairly and justly resolved; and (2) the Streamlined Trial 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. He noted that this test differs from the previous test for a Summary Trial. The issue is no longer whether the matter can be decided summarily, but whether it is necessary to use a streamlined process to have the matter fairly and justly resolved. This is a discretionary decision based on the record, as set out in Rule 8.27.

Justice Armstrong provided a list of circumstances in which a Streamlined Trial may be found necessary. That list included where the Streamlined Trial will: (1) create a more efficient process by eliminating unnecessary steps and reducing overall delay in the resolution of the dispute; (2) result in a more cost-effective process for the parties; (3) 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) result in a more sharply focussed 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) 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; and (6) where it would be unjust to require the parties to proceed to a full Trial, considering the value and complexity of the dispute.

Here, Armstrong J. found that a Streamlined Trial was not necessary. There were likely to be a number of Affidavits from a number of witnesses who would all need to be cross-examined. This would be more witnesses than would be allowed as of right in a standard Trial, pursuant to Rule 5.17. This would be less efficient and more costly than a standard Trial.

Justice Armstrong also noted that preparing for a Streamlined Trial would take more time than a standard Trial. For a standard Trial, Justices typically only review the pleadings and any pre-Trial Orders and, if necessary, the pertinent law. For a Streamlined Trial where there are multiple Affidavits and transcripts of cross-examinations, it can be very intensive and require significant judicial time. There may then be additional oral evidence to complete the evidentiary record, which adds to the complexity.

The Court concluded that, while a Streamlined Trial may save a few days of Trial time, they are offset by the additional pre-Trial steps and the considerably time the Judge must spend preparing. It found no efficiencies added by the Streamlined Trial process in this case. Where there is no increase in efficiency or cost-effectiveness, the Streamlined Trial process should not be allowed.

Despite finding that a Streamlined Trial was not necessary, Justice Armstrong went on to consider whether it would be proportionate to allow it. He noted that the concept of proportionality in part two of the test borrowed directly from the foundational Rules set out in Rule 1.2. On this stage, Armstrong J. advised that the jurisprudence on Summary Trials can be instructive, as the factors considered for the suitability of a Summary Trial are applicable. This includes the amount involved, the complexity of the matter, the urgency, any prejudice likely to arise by reason of delay, the cost of a Trial, the course of the proceedings, the need to cross examine witnesses in Court, the necessity of Questioning for discovery and whether resolution of the matter will depend on findings of credibility. However, these factors must be considered in light of Rule 8.25(3), which expressly states that a Streamlined Trial shall not be considered a disproportionate process solely because issues of credibility may arise, some oral evidence may be required at the Streamlined Trial, cross-examination of some witnesses may be required, or expert evidence may be adduced. These factors are relevant considerations but the mere existence of any one or more of these factors should not, in itself, preclude the granting of a Streamlined Trial.

Applying the factors, Justice Armstrong found that the proportionate process was a standard Trial, as it would be quicker and carry less expense. The Application was therefore dismissed.