Proposed Changes to Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure: A Plaintiff Personal Injury Lawyer’s Perspective
In April 2025, the Ontario Civil Rules Review (CRR) Working Group released its Phase 2 Consultation Paper, proposing sweeping reforms to the Rules of Civil Procedure aimed at making civil litigation more efficient, affordable, and accessible. These changes, if implemented, could fundamentally reshape how personal injury claims are litigated in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice. As a plaintiff personal injury lawyer, I see both opportunities and challenges in these proposals. Below, I analyze key aspects of the reforms, their potential benefits, and their risks for plaintiffs pursuing personal injury claims, with a focus on ensuring access to justice for injured individuals.
Overview of the Proposed Reforms
The CRR’s proposed changes are designed to streamline civil litigation and reduce costs and delays. Key proposals include:
1. Pre-Litigation Protocols (PLPs): Mandatory early exchange of information and documents for specific cases, including personal injury claims, to encourage pre-litigation resolution.
2. Universal Online Claim Form: A single, fillable online form to initiate all claims, replacing the current distinction between actions and applications.
3. Elimination of Oral Examinations for Discovery: Replacing oral discoveries with early exchange of sworn witness statements and limited written interrogatories.
4. Modified Disclosure Standard: Shifting from a relevance-based standard to a reliance-based standard, requiring parties to disclose only documents they intend to rely on and known adverse documents.
5. Timely Scheduling of Merits Hearings: Scheduling trials or hearings within two years of a claim’s commencement.
6. Simplified Service Rules: Allowing service on a lawyer communicating on a defendant’s behalf and requiring defendants to confirm receipt of a claim.
7. Default Judgment Reforms: Introducing a Notice of Default with a 14-day response period and stricter thresholds for setting aside default judgments.
These reforms, if adopted, are expected to take effect in 2026 following a consultation period ending June 16, 2025, and draft regulations by December 2025.
Potential Benefits for Personal Injury Plaintiffs
Several proposed changes could benefit plaintiffs in personal injury cases by reducing costs, speeding up resolution, and improving access to justice.
1. Pre-Litigation Protocols: Encouraging Early Settlements
The introduction of PLPs for personal injury claims mandates early disclosure of key information and documents, such as medical records and accident reports. This could help plaintiffs by:
Facilitating Early Resolution: Early exchange of evidence may push insurers to settle straightforward claims, like slip-and-fall cases, before litigation escalates, saving plaintiffs time and legal fees.
Leveling the Playing Field: Insurers often have access to extensive resources and information. Requiring early disclosure ensures plaintiffs receive critical documents, such as insurance policies or defendant statements, sooner, strengthening their negotiating position.
2. Universal Online Claim Form: Simplifying Access
The single online claim form simplifies the process of initiating a claim, which is particularly beneficial for self-represented plaintiffs or those with limited resources. This reform could:
Reduce Procedural Barriers: A standardized form eliminates confusion over whether to file an action or application, making it easier for injured individuals to start their claims.
Lower Costs: Streamlined filing through an online portal reduces administrative expenses, which is critical for plaintiffs who often fund litigation out of pocket until settlement or judgment.
3. Timely Merits Hearings: Faster Justice
Scheduling trials within two years of a claim’s commencement addresses long-standing concerns about court backlogs, which can delay justice for years. For personal injury plaintiffs:
Faster Compensation: Injured individuals often face financial strain from medical expenses and lost income. Quicker resolutions mean faster access to damages for pain and suffering, economic losses, and future care costs.
Reduced Emotional Toll: Prolonged litigation can exacerbate the psychological burden of injuries.
4. Simplified Service Rules: Overcoming Evasive Defendants
The proposed service rules allow claims to be served on a lawyer communicating on a defendant’s behalf and require defendants to confirm receipt. This is a significant win for plaintiffs, particularly in cases where defendants evade service:
Cost and Time Savings: Motions for substituted service, such as serving via email when a defendant’s address is unknown, are costly and drain court resources. The new rules could reduce the need for such motions, as insurers or their counsel may be compelled to accept service earlier.
Holding Insurers Accountable: Insurers often delay involvement until service is formalized, despite knowing they will defend the claim. The reforms may pressure insurers to engage sooner, streamlining the process.
5. Stricter Default Judgment Rules: Enforcing Accountability
The Notice of Default and stricter thresholds for setting aside default judgments strengthen plaintiffs’ ability to hold non-responsive defendants accountable:
Deterring Delay Tactics: Defendants who fail to respond within 14 days face default judgment without further notice, discouraging strategic delays by insurers or defendants.
Cost Recovery: Plaintiffs are presumptively entitled to full indemnity costs if a default is set aside, offsetting legal expenses incurred due to a defendant’s inaction.
Potential Challenges for Personal Injury Plaintiffs
While the reforms aim to improve efficiency, several proposals could hinder plaintiffs’ ability to build strong cases, particularly in complex personal injury matters like medical malpractice or catastrophic injury claims.
1. Elimination of Oral Examinations for Discovery: A Major Loss
The proposal to replace oral examinations for discovery with sworn witness statements and limited written interrogatories is deeply concerning for plaintiff lawyers:
Limited Ability to Test Evidence: Oral discoveries allow plaintiffs to probe defendants’ versions of events, uncover inconsistencies, and assess credibility. Written statements, prepared by defense counsel, may omit critical details or be carefully crafted to avoid liability, leaving plaintiffs with less ammunition for trial. In a motor vehicle accident case, a plaintiff may need to question a defendant driver about their actions leading to the collision. Written interrogatories, limited in scope, may not elicit the same depth of information as a face-to-face examination.
Complex Cases Disadvantaged: Personal injury claims often involve nuanced issues, such as causation in medical negligence or the extent of psychological injuries. Oral discoveries are essential for exploring these complexities, and their elimination could weaken plaintiffs’ cases.
2. Modified Disclosure Standard: Risk of Underdisclosure
The shift to a reliance-based disclosure standard, where parties disclose only documents they intend to rely on and known adverse documents, could undermine plaintiffs’ access to critical evidence:
Blindfolded Document Requests: Plaintiffs often rely on discovery to identify documents they don’t know exist, such as surveillance reports or investigation. The new standard requires plaintiffs to request documents “blindfolded,” potentially missing key evidence.
Burden on Plaintiffs: The reliance-based standard places a heavier burden on plaintiffs to specifically request documents through arbitration-style “Redfern Schedule” requests. This process may favor well-resourced defendants, who can afford to strategically withhold non-relied-upon documents.
Ambiguity Around “Adverse” Documents: The definition of “adverse” documents is still in development, creating uncertainty about what defendants must disclose. Without clear guidelines, insurers may exploit this ambiguity to limit disclosure.
3. Impact on Simplified Procedure Cases
Many personal injury claims fall under the simplified procedure (claims up to $200,000), which already limits discovery and trial processes. The proposed reforms could exacerbate existing challenges:
Further Restrictions on Evidence: The elimination of oral discoveries and reliance-based disclosure may disproportionately affect simplified procedure cases, where plaintiffs already face restricted discovery rights. This could hinder plaintiffs’ ability to prove damages in cases like soft-tissue injuries, where evidence is often nuanced.
4. Simplified Service Rules: Will Defendants Respond
The proposed changes to service will require defendants to confirm acceptance of a claim when it comes to their attention by any means. This change shifts some responsibility to defendants to acknowledge receipt, potentially reducing disputes over whether service was proper. That said:
Expecting a defendant in a personal injury matter to confirm service of legal documents via email is often unrealistic because they have little incentive to acknowledge receipt.
Defendants may ignore email service to delay or complicate the legal process, as confirmation typically triggers deadlines for response. Unlike certified mail or personal service, email lacks verifiable proof of delivery unless the defendant actively responds, which they can easily avoid.
Courts may also question the reliability of email service without clear evidence of receipt, making it a less dependable method for ensuring due process.
Balancing Efficiency and Fairness: A Plaintiff’s Perspective
The CRR’s proposed reforms reflect a commendable effort to modernize Ontario’s civil justice system, addressing long-standing issues like court backlogs and high litigation costs. For personal injury plaintiffs, faster hearings, simplified service, and pre-litigation protocols could mean quicker access to compensation and reduced financial strain. However, the elimination of oral discoveries and the shift to a reliance-based disclosure standard pose risks, particularly for complex cases where plaintiffs rely on robust discovery to level the playing field against well-resourced insurers.
As a plaintiff personal injury lawyer, my primary concern is ensuring that injured individuals retain meaningful access to justice. The proposed reforms must balance efficiency with fairness, ensuring that plaintiffs can still gather the evidence needed to prove their claims. The CRR Working Group is accepting feedback until June 16, 2025, and I urge plaintiff lawyers to advocate for:
1. Preserving Limited Oral Discoveries: Allowing oral examinations in complex personal injury cases, even if capped in duration, to ensure plaintiffs can test evidence.
2. Clear Disclosure Guidelines: Defining “adverse” documents broadly to prevent defendants from withholding critical evidence.
Conclusion
The proposed changes to Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure offer a mixed bag for personal injury plaintiffs. While they promise faster, more cost-effective resolutions, they risk undermining plaintiffs’ ability to build strong cases by curtailing discovery and shifting disclosure burdens. As these reforms move toward implementation, plaintiff lawyers must engage in the consultation process to ensure that the pursuit of efficiency does not come at the expense of fairness. For injured Ontarians, the stakes are high — access to justice means not just getting to court but having a real chance to prove their case and secure the compensation they deserve.
*Note: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific guidance on personal injury claims, consult a qualified lawyer.*