Looking for the Access to
Justice Research Network
(AJRN)? Click here

Inventory of Reforms

Alberta Streamlined Procedure (Part 48)

Year:
1998

Description:
Alberta Queen’s Bench Rules of Court mandating streamlined procedure for civil actions of up to $75 000.

Status:
Permanent implementation

Jurisdiction:
Alberta

Court:
Court of Queen’s Bench

Body Responsible:
Rules of Court Committee

Timeline:
1998: Rules implemented
2003: Alberta Law Reform Institute review

Publications:
Alberta Rules of Court,External Link Part 48.
June Ross & Mark Opgenorth, “Simplified proceedings = Simplification des procédures” 1 (Winter/Hiver 1998-1999) News & Views on Civil Justice Reform = Idées et actualités sur la réforme de la justice civile 4.
Alberta Rules of Court Project: Management of litigation (Consultation memorandum no. 12.5) (Alberta Law Reform Institute, 2003).
Alberta Law Reform Institute 2004-2005 annual report (Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Law Reform Institute, 2005).

Related Reforms:
Proposed replacement: Alberta Rules of Court Project – Managing Litigation (Part 4)
See also Alberta Discovery Amendments – Cost of Justice

Purpose:
The Streamlined Procedure rules address the lack of proportionality between the amount being sued for and the cost of litigation. In many cases it is not economical to litigate for amounts less than $50 000 using the regular track.

Description of Reforms:
The Streamlined Procedure rules set forth in Part 48 are mandatory for civil actions up to $75 000. They can also be ordered by the court or agreed upon by both parties. Other rules continue to apply but only to the extent consistent with this procedure.

Results:
In March 2003, the Alberta Law Reform Institute released a report analyzing the effectiveness of Streamlined Procedure. It collected responses and sent out proposals for the reform of streamlined procedure or the introduction of a simple track, or both. Some of the criticisms of Streamlined Procedure included:

As a result of this study, the Alberta Law Reform Institute concluded in its 2004-2005 Annual Report that if different tracks for different types of cases are implemented, then streamlined procedure should be eliminated.

Revision History:
This summary was last reviewed in Oct 24, 2013