Professional Practice Update: Procedural Themes and Systemic Implications of the Civil Rules Review Final Report
Prepared by: Simmi Sidhu, LL.B.
Introduction
On December 15, 2025, the Civil Rules Review Working Group released its Final Policy Report recommending a comprehensive restructuring of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed reforms are intended to modernize civil litigation by embedding proportionality, strengthening judicial case management, and reducing procedural delay. Although the recommendations apply to the Superior Court, the themes they advance are consistent with broader developments in administrative and regulatory adjudication, particularly in relation to early disclosure, focused evidentiary processes, and efficient resolution of disputes.
This practice update examines five major reform areas: the proposed three track system, the upfront evidence model and discovery changes, accelerated timelines and delay penalties, reforms to motions practice, and the redesigned framework for court annexed alternative dispute resolution.
1. The Three‑Track System
The Report introduces a structural framework that assigns every civil case to one of three procedural tracks. This model is intended to align procedural complexity with the needs of the case and to operationalize the principle of proportionality.
Application Track
The Application Track is reserved for matters that turn primarily on legal interpretation or documentary records. These cases would proceed directly to a summary hearing. This approach is consistent with the existing structure under Rule 38, but the proposed model is more streamlined and explicitly tied to proportionality.
Summary Track
The proposed changes recommend the Summary Track for most cases valued between $50,000 and $500,000. These matters would follow a standardized timetable culminating in a summary hearing. This track replaces the current combination of summary judgment under Rule 20 and simplified procedure under Rule 76. The goal is to provide a predictable and efficient process for mid‑sized disputes.
Trial Track
Trial Track, which is reserved for complex matters requiring a full evidentiary hearing incorporates early scheduling conferences, limited examinations, and active judicial oversight. This track preserves the structure of Rules 48 and 50 but introduces mandatory early case management to reduce procedural drift.
The three‑track system represents a significant shift toward a more structured and proportionate approach to civil procedure.
2. Upfront Evidence and Discovery Reform
The Report proposes a major shift in how evidence is exchanged. The central feature is the up‑front evidence model, which requires parties to exchange key documents early in the litigation process.
Upfront Evidence Requirements
A significant component of the proposed reforms is the shift toward a front-loaded disclosure and evidence model. The Report proposes that parties assume meaningful evidentiary obligations at much earlier stages of litigation, beginning with Initial Disclosure. At the time a pleading is served, each party would be required to produce all non-publicly available documents referred to in the pleading that are within the party’s possession, control, or power. This obligation is intended to ensure that the factual foundations of a claim or defence are transparent from the outset.
Following Initial Disclosure, the model moves to Primary Disclosure, which is structured around three key elements. First, parties would be required to produce all documents upon which they intend to rely to prove their case, as well as any known adverse documents that would undermine their position or assist an opposing party. Second, each party would be required to serve sworn witness statements for all witnesses on whom they intend to rely. For organizational litigants, this would include statements from all individuals who would give evidence on the corporation’s behalf. Third, parties would be required to exchange a schedule for the delivery of any expert reports they intend to rely upon, together with an ongoing obligation to update this timetable as circumstances develop. Supplementary Disclosure would still be available, although in a more limited form, through specific written requests and written interrogatories using a structured chart.
These changes have notable implications for personal injury litigation and other areas where evidence often emerges gradually and involves substantial disbursements. Under the proposed framework, parties in personal injury matters would be required to obtain and disclose medical records, treatment documentation, expert materials, and other key evidence at a much earlier stage than is presently required. This could shift a significant portion of the financial and evidentiary burden to the outset of the case. Personal injury actions can currently be commenced with limited documentation, with the evidentiary record developing over time through discoveries and expert review. Under the new model, many of these steps would occur before the action becomes procedurally mature, resulting in greater upfront costs for litigants and increased decision-making pressure for counsel who often work on a contingency basis. This represents a structural change in how these cases would be prepared and advanced.
This model replaces the broad disclosure obligations under Rule 30.02 and the affidavit of documents process under Rule 30.03.
Limited Oral Discovery
The Report also proposes eliminating oral examinations for discovery. Although oral examinations may assist in understanding facts, assessing credibility, obtaining admissions, and narrowing issues, the Report concludes that the benefits of discoveries can be achieved through the up-front evidence model at significantly lower cost. The Report identifies the logistical challenges, delays, extensive preparation, follow-up obligations, and motion practice associated with examinations as sources of significant inefficiency. Retaining oral examinations while adding these new disclosure obligations was determined to risk increasing cost and complexity in a way that was inconsistent with the objectives of the Review.
Oral discoveries will remain but on strict limits. On the Trial Track, each party would have 90 minutes for examinations, with limited objections and mandatory recording. This represents a significant departure from the current regime under Rule 31, which permits extensive examinations and often contributes to delay and cost.
Shift to a Reliance‑Based Model
The Report confirms that the earlier proposal to require disclosure of known adverse documents has been removed. There will be an adoption of a reliance‑based model, which narrows the scope of production and reduces disputes about relevance. This approach is intended to focus the parties on the evidence that truly matters.
3. Accelerated Timelines and Delay Penalties
The Report maintains the goal that most two-party cases should reach a final hearing within two years of pleadings closing. To support this objective, the amendments will introduce a financial penalties for delay. The penalties are set at $250 per day for Trial Track cases and $100 per day for Summary and Application Track cases.
These penalties are lower than those in earlier drafts, reflecting concerns about fairness and the need for judicial discretion. The proposed regime supplements the current dismissal for delay framework under Rule 48.14, which has not been sufficient to address systemic delay.
The effectiveness of the penalty system will depend on clear criteria for its application and safeguards for delays that are outside a party’s control.
4. Reforms to Motions Practice
The Report identifies motions as a major contributor to delay and cost. To address this, it proposes several reforms.
One such reform introduces early screening of interlocutory issues at a Directions Conference, simplifies motion materials, and creates a unified set of rules for pleadings‑related motions. It also establishes expedited processes for common disputes such as refusals, disclosure issues, interrogatories, and challenges to witness statements.
The goal is to reduce the number of formal motions and encourage early, informal resolution of procedural issues. This approach is consistent with modern administrative practice, where pre-hearing conferences are used to address disclosure, scheduling, and evidentiary concerns.
5. Court‑Annexed ADR Reforms
The Report proposes substantial changes to court‑connected alternative dispute resolution.
Mandatory Mediation
Mandatory mediation will expand province wide. The Report also recommends the creation of a province wide mediator roster, updated mediator fees, and training and continuing education standards. This replaces the limited mandatory mediation regime under Rule 24.1.
Changes to Pre‑Trials
Pre‑trials would be renamed Trial Management Conferences and would focus exclusively on trial preparation. Settlement discussions would occur separately through judicial settlement conferences . This separates functions that are currently combined under Rule 50.
Judicial Dispute Resolution
Judicial Dispute Resolution is a hybrid process that combines judicial mediation with the option of a summary decision if settlement is not reached. This model is new to civil litigation but draws on existing family law JDR processes. It is intended for cases with narrow issues and limited credibility concerns.
The introduction of JDR raises questions about judicial training, role clarity, and resource implications. Careful implementation will be required to ensure fairness and maintain public confidence.
Conclusion
The Civil Rules Review Final Report proposes sweeping reforms that aim to modernize Ontario’s civil justice system. The three‑track structure, the up‑front evidence model, the streamlined motions practice, and the redesigned ADR framework all reflect contemporary procedural values that emphasize proportionality, efficiency, and early case management.
Some proposals, particularly the limits on oral discovery and the introduction of Judicial Dispute Resolution, require careful implementation to ensure fairness. However, the overall direction aligns with broader trends in administrative and regulatory adjudication. If adopted, these reforms have the potential to significantly improve access to justice and enhance the fairness and efficiency of civil proceedings in Ontario.
For further details about the Civil Rules Review, please click here for the Final Policy Report.
