The Plaintiffs applied permission to proceed by Streamlined Trial. The Plaintiffs alleged wrongful dismissal by the Defendants and claimed entitlement to overtime pay, holiday pay, vacation pay, and other employment benefits. The Defendants disputed these claims, alleging that the Plaintiffs were independent or dependent contractors, not employees. A Case Management Conference was held pursuant to Rules 8.25(2) and 8.26(1)(c), and the Notice to the Profession and Public – Streamlined Trial Process – Civil (Non-Family) Actions, December 22, 2023 (NPP#2023-02).

Renke J. reviewed the test for ordering a Streamlined Trial pursuant Rule 8.25: that the Court must be satisfied that a Streamlined Trial is necessary for the purpose of the Action to be fairly and justly resolved; and that 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. The Court set out that the “necessity” standard of the test is to be assessed on the limited and predictive materials contemplated under Rule 8.27(1), and that the nature of the Action is to be considered, not the “cause of Action” alone. Additionally, the Court stated that necessity for a Streamlined Trial can be established by showing that an Action cannot be fairly and justly resolved by the ordinary Trial process.

Regarding the proportionality element of the test, Justice Renke stated that a Streamlined Trial may be disproportionate if it cannot provide sufficient procedural mechanisms to address the complexity of the issues in the Action, or if it imposes excessive burdens on court resources. Parties must provide an estimate of judicial preparation time required for the Streamlined Trial under Rule 8.29(3). If the review would require excessive demands on judicial resources, then a Streamlined Trial would be unsuitable.

The Court confirmed that, pursuant to Rule 8.28 and NPP#2023-02, parties have a joint responsibility to prepare the record for a Streamlined Trial, proceeding with an Agreed Statement of Facts. Renke J. also confirmed that, according to Rule 8.30(2), Streamlined Trials are, for the most part, decided on the documentary record as opposed to live testimony.

Renke J. determined that both facts and law were at issue in this case and that significant evidence would be required to understand the contractual relations between the parties. Further, depending on the legal characterization of the contractual relationship, more issues may arise. The Court determined that the “lead Affidavit” approach of Streamlined Trials would not be feasible in this case because an Agreed Statement of Facts appeared to be out of reach, and more time for argument, testimony and cross-examination was required than is contemplated by NPP#2023-02.

The Court concluded that a Streamlined Trial would not permit a fair and just resolution of the issues raised in the litigation and that a Streamlined approach would be disproportionately deficient due to the issues and evidential requirements of the Actions. Justice Renke therefore dismissed the Application.