Save Time & Costs: BC Summary Trials Explained

Summary trials in British Columbia offer a potentially faster and more cost-effective alternative to traditional trials based on in-person testimonies; when guided by an experienced litigator, they can serve to just, speedy, and inexpensively determine a dispute on its merits.

However, a clear understanding of when a summary trial is appropriate and the specific requirements governing these proceedings is essential for the parties contemplating this form of trial (and yes, it is still a trial with stringent evidentiary requirements).

In this article, we will provide an in-depth look at summary trials, drawing on key case law to illustrate the court’s perspective and the factors that influence a judge’s decision. We will thoroughly examine the facts and legal reasoning in Inspiration Management Ltd. v. McDermid St. Lawrence Ltd. 1989 CanLII 229 (BC CA) and Direct Horizontal Drilling Inc. v. North American Construction Management Ltd. 2025 BCCA 104 (the latter was released recently before this article was written) to clarify the fundamental principles guiding summary trial applications, and the process for seeking leave to bring a subsequent application, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of this crucial tool in civil litigation.

What is a Summary Trial?

A summary trial, conducted under the Supreme Court Civil Rules of British Columbia, is a legal procedure that allows a judge to resolve a case based primarily on written evidence, such as affidavits, documents, and other submitted materials, rather than relying on oral testimony and cross-examination of witnesses in a traditional courtroom setting.

Considering the above, a summary trial is specifically designed to expedite dispute resolution, reduce the overall time required for litigation, and minimize the often substantial expense associated with conducting full trials.

When is a Summary Trial Appropriate?

The court retains significant discretion in determining whether a case is suitable for resolution through a summary trial. This determination is not automatic and hinges on the court’s assessment of whether it can fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute based on the written evidence presented by the parties.

Case Study 1: Inspiration Management Ltd. v. McDermid St. Lawrence Ltd.

To gain a deeper understanding of the court’s perspective and the guiding principles governing summary trials, it is essential to examine a foundational case that significantly shaped the interpretation and application of the relevant rules: Inspiration Management Ltd. v. McDermid St. Lawrence Ltd.

Facts of Inspiration Management Ltd.

In Inspiration Management Ltd., the plaintiffs initiated legal action against a brokerage firm, alleging that the firm had wrongfully sold their shares. The case centred around a loan transaction, a dispute concerning the nature and extent of the security provided for the loan, and the core issue of whether the brokerage firm possessed the requisite authority to sell the plaintiffs’ shares. The initial decision by the chambers judge resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment, highlighting the complexities involved in applying the summary judgment rules.

Court’s Reasoning in Inspiration Management Ltd.

The Court of Appeal in Inspiration Management Ltd. provided comprehensive and influential guidance on the proper interpretation and application of the summary trial rules (originally Rule 18A), establishing key principles that continue to shape the procedure today:

Purpose of Rule 18A: The court emphasized that the fundamental purpose of the summary trial rule is to facilitate the efficient and timely resolution of cases whenever possible, thereby avoiding the delays and costs associated with traditional trials.
Judge’s Role: The court clearly defined the judge’s crucial role in a summary trial as being to “find the facts necessary to decide the issues of fact and law.” What differentiates the judge’s role when sitting in a summary trial from a full trial is that a summary trial necessitates a more active and engaged assessment of the evidence presented in the affidavits and other materials to determine the key events, circumstances, and legal principles relevant to the case.
When to Grant Judgment: The court clarified the conditions under which a judge “may grant judgment” in a summary trial. Judgment can be granted unless the court determines that it is unable to find the necessary facts to decide the issues or it would be unjust to resolve the case in a summary manner.
Conflicting Evidence: The court addressed the issue of conflicting evidence, specifically in the form of contradictory affidavits, and established that summary trials are not necessarily precluded in such situations. The judge retains the authority to weigh the evidence, assess credibility, and make findings of fact based on the written record.
Factors to Consider: The court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors that a judge should consider when deciding whether it would be “unjust” to grant judgment in a summary trial. These factors include the complexity of the case, the amount of money involved, the urgency of the matter, the potential for prejudice, and the overall fairness of the process.

Key Takeaway: Inspiration Management Ltd. is a cornerstone decision in British Columbia on summary trials, clarifying that summary trials are intended to be a flexible and adaptable tool for efficient dispute resolution. Judges are expected to actively engage with the evidence, resolve factual disputes where possible, and utilize the procedure to achieve a just and proportionate outcome, balancing efficiency with fairness.

The court urged judges to be “careful but not timid” when using the summary trial procedure. It emphasized that if a judge is able to find the necessary facts to make a decision, they should proceed to do so, unless there’s a compelling reason to believe that it would be unjust. The court explicitly stated that judges should not shy away from resolving factual disputes based on affidavit evidence and should not automatically default to sending a case to a full trial simply because there are conflicting affidavits.

Case Study 2: Direct Horizontal Drilling Inc. v. North American Construction Management Ltd.

The case Direct Horizontal Drilling Inc. v. North American Construction Management Ltd. centred on a dispute arising from construction work. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s initial application for a summary trial, and they subsequently sought leave (permission) to bring a second summary trial application.

In this case, the Court of Appeal provided important clarification and guidance on the specific requirements for obtaining leave to bring a second summary trial application after an initial one has been dismissed.

Seeking Leave After a Dismissed Summary Trial Application

Direct Horizontal Drilling provides a clear and structured framework for determining when a party is permitted to apply for a subsequent summary trial after their initial application was unsuccessful.

Rule 9-7(16): Rule 9-7(16) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules governs this process, explicitly stating that if the court does not grant judgment in a summary trial application, the applicant must obtain the court’s permission, formally known as “leave,” to bring a further application.
The Test for Leave: The Court of Appeal established the test that courts must apply when deciding whether to grant leave: the applicant must, as a fundamental prerequisite, demonstrate that they have adequately addressed the specific deficiencies and shortcomings that led to the dismissal of their first application before leave can be granted. This rule clearly corresponds to the adage that an applicant for a summary trial must bring their best case forward by addressing the defects, gaps and ambiguities in the evidence which caused the first attempt to be dismissed.

Distinguishing Between Dismissal Applications and Leave Applications

In Direct Horizontal Drilling, the application respondent brought a cross-application to dismiss the summary trial while the applicant sought leave.

The Court of Appeal highlighted a critical procedural difference between these two: these are distinct processes with different legal requirements and onus. An application to dismiss, typically brought under Rule 9-7(11), challenges the suitability of the case for summary trial in the first place. The onus is on the party seeking dismissal to show that a summary trial is inappropriate, e.g. the lack of evidence, evidence being ambiguous (as the court determined in Direct Horizontal Drilling), etc.

In contrast, an application for leave to bring a second summary trial under Rule 9-7(16) occurs after an initial summary trial application has failed. Here, the onus shifts to the applicant, who must justify why the court should allow a second attempt at a summary trial.

While the Inspiration Management and Direct Horizontal Drilling cases provide key guidance from the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada has also offered important perspectives in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the need for a shift in culture towards summary judgment as a means to improve access to justice by providing timely and affordable adjudication. The Court highlighted that summary judgment should be granted where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, focusing on whether (1) the judge is able to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) the judge is able to apply the law to the facts, and (3) the process is proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive than a full trial. This Supreme Court guidance reinforces the importance of summary trials as a valuable tool for efficient dispute resolution when used appropriately.

Vancouver Litigation Lawyer: Resolve Disputes Efficiently

Ready to explore a more efficient path to resolving your commercial disputes in British Columbia? Don’t let lengthy and costly litigation be your only option. Roland Luo proudly serves a diverse range of communities and clients across British Columbia, Canada, and the U.S., offering guidance on strategic dispute resolution, including the effective use of summary trials. To schedule a confidential consultation with a skilled commercial litigation lawyer and discuss how this approach might benefit your case, contact the firm online or call 604-800-4628 today.