Legalviews Personal

A recent King's Bench decision contains statements about several aspects of procedural law.

A. General Power of King's Bench Justices and Applications Judges

The Court of King's Bench is a superior court and being such gives it broad jurisdiction and powers. It also gets them under Alberta legislation and under the Rules of Court (¶ʼs 10, 20). Under R. 1.2, the foundation of civil practice and procedure are the principles of proportionality, access to justice, and the fair and cost-effective resolution of disputes (¶ 6).

B. Power to Move King's Bench Lawsuits to the Court of Justice

No Rule of Court or other legislation expressly gives the King's Bench power to transfer a suit in that court and in its jurisdiction to the Court of Justice, without consent of all parties (¶ 7). However, R. 1.4(1) gives King's Bench a wide power to make any order with respect to practice or procedure to implement and advance the purpose and intention of the “foundational rules”, so long as there is no other contradictory Rule (¶ʼs 9, 16-17). But such a transfer must advance the purposes and intentions of the Rules (¶ʼs 18-19). Section 96 of the Constitution Act does not give a litigant an entrenched right to have his or her suit heard in King's Bench, if the Court of Justice also has jurisdiction (¶ʼs 12-14). Several other provinces with similar legislation have found an implied power to transfer suits from the superior court to the Provincial Court (¶ 22).

C. Grounds for Moving Suits from King's Bench to Court of Justice

Where a lawsuit is for a fairly modest amount, that tends to support a transfer to the Court of Justice, as pre-trial discovery may be too slow and expensive. If there is an arguable point, which court has faster default judgment is probably not relevant. The Court of Justice has mediation and payment-scheduling and costs tariffs more proportionate to smaller suits. The whole process in the Court of Justice is designed to be easier for self-represented litigants. All that is especially true when the procedure selected by the plaintiff does not come with straightforward good evidence (¶ʼs 25-28), or where the plaintiff seems unable to discuss such procedural weaknesses (¶ʼs 31-35).

The decision suggests that such a transfer may be on the King's Bench's own initiative, without such a request for transfer from either party (¶ 38).

D. Sufficient Evidence for Substitutional Service

What is the last-known address of the defendant (needed for service), needs better evidence than an old credit application or credit report. The address current for the defendant's driver's license, or details about what searches for the person were made and with what results, are examples of such better evidence. What happened to an email sent to an old address is probably not useful (¶ 37(b)).

E. The Recent Decision

See PRA Group Can. v. Wylie 2026 ABKB 512 (AJ Jul 15).

– Hon. J.E. Côté

JURISDICTION AND SUBSTITUTIONAL SERVICE