The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta has denied a request for a streamlined trial in the wrongful dismissal lawsuit filed by a former Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT) employee who took office chairs he thought were being discarded and sold them online, ruling that the complexity and scope of the case require a full trial.
Justice Douglas R. Mah dismissed an application by J.B., a former department head at NAIT, who had sought an expedited one-day trial under Rule 8.25 of Alberta’s Rules of Court. Alberta has allowed for streamlined trials since Jan. 1, 2024 under new rules.
J.B. argued that the matter, which stems from an incident in 2018, involved straightforward facts that could be efficiently handled with minimal witness testimony and affidavit evidence.
Removal of office chairs
The wrongful dismissal claim revolves around J.B.’s termination after he took several office chairs from NAIT, believing they were being discarded, and attempted to sell them online. J.B. admitted to the actions but claimed he had no dishonest intent. NAIT, on the other hand, argued that his actions amounted to theft, that he misled staff during an investigation, and that his conduct breached the trust expected of him as a senior employee.
J.B. contended that a streamlined trial was appropriate given that the case primarily involved a single question of whether his actions were dishonest or innocent. He argued that “only a nominal assessment of credibility is required,” and that the streamlined process would be “a more proportionate, expeditious and efficient means to achieve a just result.”
Half-a-dozen witnesses
NAIT, however, opposed the streamlined trial, maintaining that the issues were more complex than J.B. suggested. The institute indicated that it would need to call five to six witnesses to present a defence of just cause, and argued that there would be no efficiency gained by proceeding with a streamlined trial.
The court applied a two-part test to assess whether a streamlined trial was necessary and proportionate, as required under Rule 8.25. Justice Mah emphasized that J.B., as the party seeking the streamlined trial, bore the burden of proving that the request met the criteria of necessity and proportionality. He noted that while wrongful dismissal actions are often candidates for streamlined trials, “it is not inevitable” that they will be handled through this process.
Justice Mah also referenced case law indicating that a streamlined trial may be used when it is the only way to achieve a fair and just result. “Necessity, I observe, could be established by showing that an action can be fairly and justly resolved by streamlined trial but not by the ordinary trial process,” the ruling stated, citing Hou v Canadian North Inc.
Reasons for rejection
The court ultimately concluded that the streamlined trial process was not suitable for J.B.’s case, citing the number of witnesses, the need for credibility assessments, and the evidentiary burden. Mah noted that NAIT had raised several key questions that required resolution at trial, including whether his removal of the chairs was dishonest, whether he attempted to deceive colleagues, and whether there was a breach of NAIT’s policies and procedures.
“While the presence of just cause or not is the overall looming issue, the pleadings and counsel submissions raise these questions for trial,” Justice Mah wrote, listing several factual issues that would need to be examined.
The decision pointed out that a full trial would allow for a comprehensive evaluation of the testimony from the five to six witnesses that NAIT intended to call, including those who were involved in conversations with J.B. and those responsible for investigating the incident. The court was particularly concerned that the credibility of these witnesses, as well as that of J.B., was central to resolving the case, and that a streamlined process would not suffice.
“There is not much if any litigation economy to be gained here and even the chance that ordering a streamlined trial will have the opposite effect, of prolonging the process rather than streamlining it,” the court ruled. Justice Mah also referenced the extensive documentary record, noting that it already spanned three inches of material.
In dismissing the application, the court acknowledged J.B.’s desire for litigation economy and the inherent power imbalance between an individual employee and a large institution like NAIT. However, Mah ruled that NAIT was entitled to fully defend itself, and that the full trial process would best serve the interests of justice.
The ruling did leave open the possibility for both parties to address procedural matters in the future. “If counsel wish direction from me with regard to a procedural Order to assist in getting this matter to trial efficiently and expeditiously, I will oblige,” Justice Mah stated, noting that the incident occurred more than six years ago and that “there must be some finality, and soon, for the sake of both sides.”
The case will now proceed to a full trial, though no specific date has been set. Both sides have 30 days to submit written arguments regarding the costs of the streamlined trial application.
For more information, see Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563 (CanLII).
