PRA GROUP CANADA INC v WYLIE, 2026 ABKB 512

This decision arose from a Desk Application for an Order to extend the time for filing and serving a Statement of Claim, as well as an Order for substitutional service. The Applicant sought to file a Statement of Claim in respect of a modest debt claim. However, the Court focused primarily on whether the matter should be transferred to the Court of Justice, which was raised by the Court on its own initiative.

Applications Judge Wanke noted that Rule 1.4 empowers the Court to make any Order necessary to further the purpose and intention of the foundational rules set out in Rule 1.2. Given the broad language of Rule 1.4, the Court determined that no common law, statutory, or constitutional barriers limited that interpretation. In assessing whether the matter should proceed in the Court of Justice, Applications Judge Wanke found the Claim to be clearly within the subject matter and financial limit of the Court of Justice and considered whether transferring the matter would further the purpose of the Rules.

Applications Judge Wanke concluded that a transfer to the Court of Justice would be more proportionate, fair, and cost-effective than proceeding in the Court of King’s Bench, largely because of the matter’s relative simplicity. The Court acknowledged that the more extensive discovery processes available in the Court of King’s Bench would likely provide little benefit in the circumstances. By contrast, the Court of Justice’s mediation and payment hearing processes were well suited to the dispute, particularly given its nature as a debt claim. The Court also noted that the filing fees and costs consequences available in the Court of Justice would be more proportionate than those available in the Court of King’s Bench. Applications Judge Wanke further observed that the modest claim had already made inefficient use of judicial resources through a deficient Desk Application, weighing in favour of transfer.

The Court directed the Action be transferred to the Court of Justice. However, Applications Judge Wanke stayed the transfer for 30 days to allow the Applicant to apply to set aside or vary the decision pursuant to Rule 9.15, if he chose to do so. The Court determined that the Application for substitutional service was unsatisfactory and dismissed the Application. However, given the low threshold for granting an extension of time for service, Applications Judge Wanke extended the time for service of the Statement of Claim by three months, during which time the Applicant would have the opportunity to bring another substitutional service Application, but directed that service should be dealt with at the Court of Justice.