z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Hryniak v. Mauldin Comes to Alberta: Summary Judgment, Culture Shift, and the Future of Civil Trials
Author(s) -
Barbara Billingsley
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
alberta law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1925-8356
pISSN - 0002-4821
DOI - 10.29173/alr789
Subject(s) - supreme court , law , jurisprudence , civil procedure , test (biology) , political science , paleontology , biology
Alberta’s law of civil procedure, and summary judgment in particular, has experienced a culture shift since the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Hryniak v. Mauldin. This article asks whether litigation directed toward a conventional trial is now, or is soon to be, a thing of the past. Although intended to revive traditional trials as a realistic and timely resolution option, it is impossible to say yet if this will be Hryniak’s legacy in Alberta. Three things are clear in post-Hryniak Albertan jurisprudence, however: first, the Hryniak test governs the determination of summary judgment applications in Alberta; second, Alberta courts have embraced the call for proportionality in litigation procedure; and third, the Hryniak culture shift creates uncertainty for Alberta litigants.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here