Ontario’s civil justice system is preparing for its most significant overhaul in decades. In April 2025, the Civil Rules Review’s Consultation Paper was released and proposed sweeping changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure aimed at tackling long-standing concerns about a system burdened by cost, delay, and complexity.
Following a consultation period, further changes were announced in September 2025, however, the full report on the revised proposal has yet to be released. If implemented, the reforms will fundamentally reshape how litigation is conducted — moving cases to resolution faster, front-loading evidence, curbing procedural skirmishes, and imposing stricter timelines and cost consequences.
While these changes have not been finalized, the direction is clear: litigants should prepare now for a future where civil cases proceed on a shorter, more disciplined track, with the focus firmly on the merits rather than the process.
Below, we answer common questions about what the new rules will mean for you as litigants in Ontario’s civil justice system.
1. Why is Ontario Changing the Rules now?
The Consultation Paper bluntly describes Ontario’s civil justice system as “in crisis” — too slow, too expensive, and too often inaccessible to many. Cases frequently get bogged down in procedural battles rather than decided on their merits which causes a drain on time and resources. The reforms are designed to create a cultural shift in litigation: timely, proportionate, and cost-effective justice, with stricter cooperation, discipline, and accountability for both parties and counsel.
2. How will I start a lawsuit?
Every case will begin with a single online Claim Form or originating process. You won’t need to choose between an “action” or “application”. The Claim Form will capture the essential facts, set out the legal grounds for your case, and include a short summary in an Appendix. Your lawsuit will fall under one of three tracks of cases: an Application Track, a Summary Track, or a High Value Track (claims over $500,000.00).
3. What will I need to start a claim under the new system?
The new up-front evidence model means evidence must be exchanged earlier than before. This puts parties to the test of supporting their factual allegations early with relevant material.
- For certain cases (personal injury, debt collection, will challenges), you must first follow a Pre-Litigation Protocol, exchanging documents and attempting early resolution, before commencing a claim.
- Each pleading (Claim, Defence, etc.) must be supported by the documents it refers to in the pleading.
- After pleadings are complete, both sides must immediately exchange witness statements for every fact witness (including will-say statements for non-party witnesses where on the High Value Track), all documents they intend to rely on, and a timeline for expert reports. These witness statements will later serve as the witness’s evidence-in-chief at a dispositive hearing.
4. Can I still get more information from the other side?
Yes, but in a narrower way than before. Before pleadings close, you can challenge a pleading that doesn’t disclose a proper claim or defence, but there will be no requests or motions for particulars. After pleadings close, parties may make limited, specific requests for further documents or submit a small number of written questions. There will also be an opportunity to complete cross-examinations (which will be video recorded)
5. Will I still be attending examinations for discovery?
Unlikely, unless your lawsuit falls under the High Value Track. The proposed reforms generally eliminate oral discoveries and rely on the up-front evidence model described above. With parties being required to exchange their witness statements and documents earlier, the issues are clearer, and the disputes are narrowed well before trial.
However, shorter examinations for discovery will be available for cases on the High Value Track unless those cases are mortgage enforcement or liquidated damages cases.
6. What happens if there’s a dispute before trial?
Any timetabling issues will be addressed at a meeting with a judge called a Scheduling Conference or a Directions Conference, to be scheduled after pleadings are exchanged. Urgent or procedural disputes will be addressed at Directions Conferences.
At these conferences, the court can:
- Decide the issue on the spot (often after short oral submissions),
- Set deadlines or request further evidence, or
- Order a streamlined formal motion, capped at shorter affidavits and 20-page factums.
7. What about a mediation and settlement?
Mediation remains mandatory, but it will be built into the court’s schedule. The court will set firm dates for mediation at a Directions Conference or a Scheduling Conference, depending on the track. The intention is to encourage earlier, more meaningful settlement discussions — before parties incur the full costs of trial preparation.
8. How fast will my case move now?
The overarching goal is for cases to reach a dispositive hearing within two years of commencing the Claim, whether the hearing is a paper-based hearing (presumptively in writing), with judicial discretion to hear oral evidence, or a conventional trial. The movement of your lawsuit may also depend on which track your case falls under. The use of Directions Conferences in the Application Track and the Summary Track will assist cases in moving forward, whereas Scheduling Conferences will be used in the High Value Track (with Directions Conferences available where requested) to achieve the same goal.
9. Is it going to be more expensive to litigate under the new Rules?
The overall goal of the reforms is to reduce costs by generally eliminating examinations for discovery, reducing motions, and setting earlier trial dates. Costs balloon because of lengthy oral discoveries, procedural skirmishes, and repeated motions (all of which are addressed with the proposed reforms, as described above).
This up-front evidence model shifts more of the work to the early stages of a case (preparing witness statements and gathering documents earlier) which is intended to save time and money later, because it encourages parties to consider their case thoroughly and narrow issues accordingly.
Importantly, the reforms also impose real consequences for delay or non-compliance. For example, missing a hearing date could result in pleadings being struck, with relief only in exceptional cases. Courts may impose financial penalties payable to the other party if delays are caused.
Next Steps and the Bottom Line for Clients
These reforms are still proposals under review. The Ministry of the Attorney General and the Superior Court of Justice may make changes and introduce practice directions before final rules are adopted. The bottom line is that sweeping change is inevitable. While some details may shift, we expect many of the central reforms—such as the up-front evidence model, case-conference management, and stricter timelines—to take effect. Once implemented, these reforms will significantly reshape litigation in Ontario.
On September 25, 2025, at the Opening of the Courts, Chief Justice Morawetz confirmed that “maintaining the status quo poses the greatest risk of all”. His Honour stated that the coming changes to the Rules, if sufficiently resourced, are intended to provide timely and accessible justice for all Ontarians. The Civil Rules Review has not yet provided a precise timeline for this roll out, but the current understanding is that these new changes will be rolled out in phases beginning in 2026. We will continue to monitor the process and provide updates as they are made available.
If you have any questions about the changes to Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, please contact any member of our Civil Rules Review Working Group.
- Ian P. Katchin, Partner
- Robert Macdonald, Partner
- Samantha M. Green, Partner
- Martine Garland, Partner
- Alexander Evangelista, Partner
- Tea Obradovic, Associate
- Max Samuels, Associate
- Lisa Lossner, Law Clerk
- Kate Parker, Law Clerk
This publication is intended for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
