 |
| Chris MacDonald |
This article serves as an introduction to these sweeping reforms and sets the stage for my upcoming series, where I’ll explore each major change and its implications for civil litigators, personal injury lawyers, claimants, treatment providers, and insurers.
Why reform was necessary
Ontario’s civil justice system has long been described as “arcane, expensive and plagued by delay.” This sentiment was echoed by Justice Boswell during the recent consultation webinar: “We’re sticking with a 140-year-old model not because it works but because we haven’t had the will to change it.” The system’s inefficiencies have been well-documented, with the
jadamprostore: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Recognizing this crisis, Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Attorney General Doug Downey launched the Civil Rules Review (CRR) in January 2024. Their mandate was clear: to conduct a comprehensive review of the Rules of Civil Procedure and reimagine the system from the ground up. As Chief Justice Morawetz stated in his remarks at the Opening of the Courts in September 2024: “The objective is not just to tinker with the Rules; it is wholesale reform.”
The proposed reforms aim to address systemic issues that have hindered access to justice for decades:
- Cost overruns: Litigation costs often exceed damages sought, pricing justice out of reach for many.
- Delays: Cases routinely take five years or more to reach trial, with motions culture clogging court dockets.
- Inefficiency: Procedural complexity has turned process into an obstacle rather than a pathway to justice.
As Allison Speigel aptly remarked during the webinar: “Settlements today are driven by exhaustion — not fairness. That’s an admission the system is broken.” The reforms respond to this reality with urgency and boldness, proposing transformative changes that will require significant adjustments but promise a more efficient and accessible justice system.
Key highlights of the proposed reforms
The consultation paper outlines transformative changes designed to simplify litigation while preserving fairness and proportionality. Here’s a high-level overview of the most significant proposals:
1. Pre-litigation protocols (PLPs)
Mandatory for personal injury claims, PLPs require plaintiffs to exchange medical records, wage loss evidence and accident benefits files within 30 days of retaining counsel. Early mediation becomes compulsory, with a proposed extension of Ontario’s basic limitation period from two years to three years to accommodate this process.
2. The end of oral discoveries
Oral examinations for discovery would be eliminated entirely — replaced by sworn witness statements exchanged within 270 days of filing. Written interrogatories (capped at 25 questions per party) will provide limited opportunities for clarification. Reliance-based disclosure will narrow document production obligations to materials parties intend to rely on or “known adverse documents.”
During the webinar, both Justice Boswell and Allison Speigel addressed the elimination of oral discoveries — a change that has sparked the most significant pushback from litigators across the province. Oral examinations have long been a cornerstone of North American litigation practice, valued for their role in gathering information, testing credibility and uncovering admissions. However, Boswell and Speigel emphasized that while discoveries undoubtedly have value, their costs and delays outweigh their benefits under the proposed Up-Front Evidence Model.
Justice Boswell acknowledged the resistance head-on: “We’re not saying discoveries lack value; we’re saying they don’t add sufficient value in this new framework to justify the expense and inefficiency they bring.”
The working group’s rationale is clear: under the Up-Front Evidence Model, parties will exchange sworn witness statements and all reliance-based documents early in the process, providing clarity on each side’s case without the need for oral questioning. While some litigators argue this approach removes an essential tool for assessing credibility, Boswell countered that credibility can still be evaluated through consistency with documents, probabilities and external facts — methods already used at trial for witnesses who aren’t subject to discovery.
3. Fixed timelines
A rigid timetable mandates that most cases reach trial within two years of filing. Cases involving unstable injuries may be placed on an inactive list or bifurcated to allow liability evidence to proceed while damages assessments are deferred.
4. Summary hearings under the paper record+ process
Judges must issue final decisions at summary hearings — eliminating failed motions that send cases back to trial tracks. Decisions hinge on written evidence, with limited oral testimony allowed at judicial discretion.
5. Eliminating motions culture
By introducing directions conferences as a default mechanism for resolving procedural disputes, the reforms aim to drastically reduce reliance on formal motions practice.
The importance of consultation
One point emphasized repeatedly during the webinar was the importance of input from stakeholders during this consultation period, which ends on June 16, 2025. Justice Boswell made it clear: “These proposals are not set in stone — consultation is critical to shaping what comes next.”
This is your opportunity to voice concerns or suggestions about specific aspects of these reforms — whether it’s advocating for exceptions in personal injury cases or refining how pre-litigation protocols are implemented. The feedback provided now could directly influence how these changes are finalized and rolled out in 2026.
Reflections: Why these changes matter
While these reforms demand significant adjustments from lawyers and litigants alike, I believe they represent a necessary evolution toward greater access to justice:
- Pressure on insurers: PLPs force insurers to engage meaningfully early in claims — reducing stalling tactics that prolong cases unnecessarily. As Justice Boswell noted during the webinar: “The days of serving a claim and waiting a year for an adjuster’s response are over.”
- Cost control: Eliminating discoveries and reducing motion culture cuts down on litigation expenses that often exceed damages sought — particularly in smaller claims.
- Fairer outcomes: By narrowing procedural steps and focusing parties early on substantive issues, these reforms aim to resolve disputes faster while preserving fairness.
- Streamlined processes: The reliance-based disclosure model eliminates fishing expeditions while still requiring parties to disclose adverse documents — ensuring transparency without unnecessary costs.
- Cultural shift: These reforms challenge entrenched habits but offer a chance for lawyers — and judges — to rethink how efficiency can coexist with fairness.
As Speigel remarked during the webinar: “This process is like fine wine — initially bold but increasingly compelling over time.” While it may take time for practitioners to adjust their workflows and embrace new strategies, I share her optimism that these reforms will ultimately deliver better outcomes for injured plaintiffs and victims.
Conclusion: Leading through change
Having analyzed these reforms extensively — and reflected deeply on their implications — I’m convinced they represent our best chance at transforming Ontario’s civil justice system into one that prioritizes efficiency without sacrificing fairness.
This article marks the beginning of my series unpacking these changes in detail — from PLPs to fixed timelines and beyond. In future instalments, I’ll dive deeper into contentious issues like the elimination of oral discoveries and its implications for personal injury actions and civil litigation generally.
If you have questions about how these reforms will impact your practice — or if you’d like assistance preparing for what’s ahead — please don’t hesitate to reach out!
Chris MacDonald is a personal injury lawyer at MacDonald Injury Lawyers, a firm dedicated to representing individuals who have suffered severe and catastrophic injuries. MacDonald specializes in guiding clients and their families through the aftermath of life-altering events, ensuring they receive the compensation and support necessary to rebuild their lives. He is passionate about advocating for his clients with empathy and determination. You can reach Chris at chris@macdonaldinjurylaw.com or 647-669-9580.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.