Elliott v. Amante, 2001 ABQB 1080

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 14, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABQB 1080;(2001), 306 A.R. 82 (QB)

Elliott v. Amante (2001), 306 A.R. 82 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. JA.032

Deborah Lee Elliott (plaintiff) v. Santo Luigi Amante (defendant)

(Action No. 9901-13359; 2001 ABQB 1080)

Indexed As: Elliott v. Amante

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Rooke, J.

December 14, 2001.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant for dam­ages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant applied for a civil jury trial under the Jury Act. The plaintiff applied for leave to have a summary trial under the "Summary Trial Rules". After a number of interlocutory proceedings, the Alberta Court of Appeal directed a consoli­dated hearing of the two applica­tions - see [2000] A.R. Uned. 400. The hearing proceeded.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no conflict between an appli­cation for a civil jury under the Jury Act and an application under the Summary Trial Rules. Such applications raise the threshold issue of the type of trial: conventional or summary. The court stated that it is only if the court finds that a conventional trial is more appropriate than a summary trial that the secondary issue of the mode of trial arises. For this reason, the court concluded that there was really no prima facie conflict between applications for jury trials and summary trials. The court held that this case was appropriate for summary trial, and as a result, the court did not need to consider the civil jury application. The court opined, however, that had it not granted the sum­mary trial applica­tion, it would have granted the civil jury application.

Practice - Topic 5100

Juries and jury trials - Right to a jury - General (incl. when jury trial appropriate) -[See second and third Practice - Topic 5274.1 and Practice - Topic 5274.2 ].

Practice - Topic 5105

Juries and jury trials - Right to a jury - When available - [See third Practice - Topic 5274.1 ].

Practice - Topic 5255.1

Trials - Summary trials - General - [See all Practice - Topic 5274.1 and Practice - Topic 5274.2 ].

Practice - Topic 5255.4

Trials - Summary trials - Availablilty of - [See Practice - Topic 5274.2 ].

Practice - Topic 5255.8

Trials - Summary trials - Procedure - [See first and third Practice - Topic 5274.1 ].

Practice - Topic 5274.1

Trials - Simplified procedure actions, fast track litigation, etc. - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that until recently the Rules of Court provided for only one "type" of trial ("the conven­tional trial") - In 1998, two new forms of trial were added, the "streamlined pro­cedure" and the "summary trial" - The "streamlined procedure" was applicable to claims under $75,000 and the conven­tional trial where that amount was exceeded (with some exceptions), unless the court ordered a summary trial - A "streamlined trial" provided a mandatory simplified pre-trial and trial procedure - Affidavit evi­dence and pre-trial cross-examination was available at trial unless objected to by the other side, in which case leave was required - The "Summary Trial Rules" contemplated that the adjudication would be based on affidavits, answers to inter­rogatories, evidence (of parties adverse in interest) taken on examination for dis­cov­ery, and other documents and admis­sions - Viva voce evidence would be allowed with leave only - See paragraphs 1 to 14.

Practice - Topic 5274.1

Trials - Simplified procedure actions, fast track litigation, etc. - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no conflict between an applica­tion for a civil jury under the Jury Act and an application under the "Summary Trial Rules" - The court held that such applica­tions raise a threshold issue of the type of trial: conventional or summary - It is only if the court finds that a conventional trial is more appropriate than a summary trial that the secondary issue of the mode of trial arises - Thus, the court concluded that there was really no prima facie conflict between applications for jury trials and summary trials - See paragraphs 1 to 55.

Practice - Topic 5274.1

Trials - Simplified procedure actions, fast track litigation, etc. - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the "mode" of trial referred to the trier of fact, whether judge alone or jury - The mode of trial for a conventional trial is by judge alone, unless a civil jury is directed - Since the rules respecting streamlined trial made no reference to mode of trial, the court held that the same modes of trial therefore appear to be avail­able for con­ventional and streamlined trials - The mode of trial for a summary trial is always judge alone - See paragraphs 15 to 24.

Practice - Topic 5274.2

Trials - Simplified procedure actions, fast track litigation, etc. - When available - The plain­tiff sued the defendant for damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident - The defendant applied for a civil jury trial under the Jury Act - The plaintiff sought a summary trial - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this case was appropriate for summary trial, and as a result, the court did not need to con­sider the civil jury application - The court held that credibility concerns involv­ing the plaintiff could be resolved through cross-examination on the plaintiff's affida­vit prior to or at the summary trial - The court opined that had it not granted the summary trial application, it would have granted the civil jury application - See paragraphs 56 to 129.

Cases Noticed:

Jabrica v. Krueger et al. (2001), 306 A.R. 113 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Evans v. Stirling (2001), 306 A.R. 120 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Hajjar v. Repetowski, [2001] 8 W.W.R. 539; 319 A.R. 251 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Inspiration Management Ltd. v. McDermid St. Lawrence Ltd. (1989), 36 B.C.L.R.(2d) 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Hubbard v. Edmonton (City), [1917] 3 W.W.R. 732 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Ong v. Chow (1969), 69 W.W.R.(N.S.) 232 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Hodder v. Lee (1913), 3 W.W.R. 1041 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Salter v. Calgary (City) (1916), 10 W.W.R. 173 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Godfrey v. Marshall, [1917] 1 W.W.R. 1097 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Rich v. Henson, [1923] 1 W.W.R. 812 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Hoskins v. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co., [1930] 1 W.W.R. 369 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

MacDonald v. Leduc Utilities Ltd., [1953] 1 D.L.R. 555 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Przybylski v. Morcos and Misericordia Hospital (1986), 75 A.R. 233; 49 Alta. L.R.(2d) 164 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

St. Denis v. Trumbley (1977), 4 A.R. 212; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

King v. Colonial Homes Ltd., [1956] S.C.R. 528, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 4].

Waymark v. Barnes et al. (1995), 57 B.C.A.C. 249; 94 W.A.C. 249; 3 B.C.L.R.(3d) 354 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, foot­note 4].

Bhullar v. Atwal (1995), 43 C.P.C.(3d) 326 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 31, foot­note 4].

Pro-Man Construction v. Lennie DeBow & Martin (1998), 213 A.R. 1; 59 Alta. L.R.(3d) 178 (Q.B.), revd. (2001), 277 A.R. 190; 242 W.A.C. 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Wisener v. Wisener Estate (2000), 259 A.R. 393; 78 Alta. L.R.(3d) 152 (Surr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Greenwood (1992), 56 O.A.C. 321; 7 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

L'Hirondelle v. Grier et al. (2000), 273 A.R. 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Min­ister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 40].

Compton Petroleum Corp. v. Alberta Power Ltd. (1999), 242 A.R. 3 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

Bhate v. Telecom Leasing Canada (TLC) Ltd. et al. (1999), 8 B.C.T.C. 30; 33 C.P.C.(4th) 385 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 45].

Bush v. Lundstrom et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 170 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

U.B.'s Autobody Ltd. et al. v. Reid's Welding (1981) Inc. et al. (1999), 258 A.R. 325 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46].

Ram v. Pointner et al. (1999), 7 B.C.T.C. 378; 32 C.P.C.(4th) 145 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 50].

Brayshaw v. Sommerfeld (1996), 24 C.P.C.(4th) 262 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 5].

Hagerty v. Connor, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. C17; 56 B.C.L.R.(3d) 104 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 5].

Juker v. Keith (1994), 99 B.C.L.R.(2d) 262 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 5].

Elyk v. Doe, [1996] B.C.J. No. 535 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Prevost v. Johansen, [2001] B.C.T.C. 531 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 51].

Baigent v. Gruber, [1995] B.C.J. No. 2841 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Mallal v. Murphy et al., [1999] 19 B.C.T.C. 352 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Foreman v. Foster (2001), 147 B.C.A.C. 254; 241 W.A.C. 254; 196 D.L.R.(4th) 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Raats v. French et al. (1991), 120 A.R. 122; 8 W.A.C. 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

590988 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. 728699 Alberta Ltd. et al., [1999] A.R. Uned. 222; 30 C.P.C.(4th) 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 91].

Adams et al. v. Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. (1999), 248 A.R. 120; 72 Alta. L.R.(3d) 234 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 91].

Kirk v. Ciceri (1995), 7 B.C.L.R.(3d) 103 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 93].

S.J.M. Properties Ltd. v. Kasper et al. (1999), 246 A.R. 355 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 95].

Samek v. Black Tusk Energy Inc. (2000), 273 A.R. 148 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 95].

Reykdal (N.V.) & Associates Ltd. v. 571582 Alberta Ltd. et al., [2000] A.R. Uned. 444; 90 Alta. L.R.(3d) 37 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

Miller v. Stowell, [2001] B.C.T.C. Uned. 155 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 96].

Otto v. Holburn, [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. B44 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 97].

Lerer v. Baker, [2000] B.C.J. No. 2413 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 97].

Mattu v. Mattu et al. (2001), 151 B.C.A.C. 286; 249 W.A.C. 286 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote 9].

Chaudhry v. Johnson, [1995] B.C.J. No. 2879 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

Sturby v. Carlos, [1995] B.C.J. No. 2880 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

Newfield v. Wright, [1996] B.C.J. No. 792 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

Dickinson v. Ferguson, [1996] B.C.J. No. 1591 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

Rai v. Wilson, [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. J50 (S.C.), affd. (1999), 120 B.C.A.C. 122; 196 W.A.C. 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

Tate v. Zarantonello, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. G57 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

Walker v. Walker (2001), 281 A.R. 138; 248 W.A.C. 138 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

Statutes Noticed:

Jury Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. J-2.1, sect. 16 [para. 17].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 158.3 [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Bar Association, Report of the Task Force on Systems of Civil Justice (1996), pp. 41, 45 [para. 10].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 176 [para. 40]; 186 [para. 32].

Irvine, The Right to a Civil Jury in British Columbia: Procedural or Substantive? - Case Comment Re Bhullar v. Atwal (1995), 43 C.P.C.(3d) 330, generally [para. 31, footnote 4].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Alberta Civil Pro­cedure Handbook (2001), pp. 184, 185 [para. 78].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Civil Pro­cedure Guide (1996), pp. 916 to 919, 923, 924 [para. 78].

Counsel:

Harris N. Hanson (Hanson Associates), for the plaintiff;

Allison M. Neapole and Ronald J. Robinson (Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP), for the defendant.

These applications were heard by Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, on January 30 and 31, 2001, with writ­ten arguments and materials filed on Febru­ary 7 and 26, March 15, June 4 and July 24 and 26, 2001. The following reasons for decision of Rooke, J., were delivered on December 14, 2001.