Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution: An Emerging Option in Ontario Family Law

When navigating a family law proceeding, parties often feel limited to two imperfect options: settlement discussions that may stall, or a traditional trial, which can be lengthy, costly, and emotionally demanding. In recent years, Ontario’s family courts have placed greater emphasis on procedures that enhance efficiency, proportionality, and timely resolution, particularly for cases that do not require the full rigour of a trial. 

One emerging option is Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (BJDR). This court‑based process provides a streamlined path to a final, binding outcome by integrating elements of both negotiation and adjudication. It is designed to help families achieve resolution more quickly while preserving judicial oversight and ensuring that resulting orders remain enforceable. 

What is Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution?  

BJDR is a summary hearing process that parties may choose instead of proceeding to trial. Its goal is to deliver final orders through a focused, simplified procedure. Launched on May 14, 2021, BJDR began as a pilot project within select jurisdictions of the Superior Court of Justice. Following its early success, the pilot was expanded to a broader range of court locations across Ontario, including Timmins, Peterborough, and Kitchener. BJDR is currently available in the East, Central East, Central South, Northeast, Northwest, Toronto regions, and Middlesex County.  

As of January 22, 2025, BJDR became entrenched in Rule 43 of the Family Law Rules, which provided a comprehensive, rules‑based framework for BJDR hearings. 

How Do BJDR Hearings Work? 

A BJDR hearing typically consists of two interconnected phases, as outlined by the Superior Court of Justice in Little v Little,   

1. Settlement Phase: The presiding judge works with both parties to explore whether any issues can be resolved by agreement. The presiding judge may offer guidance or express preliminary views on potential outcomes.   

2. Adjudication Phase: If issues remain unresolved, the presiding judge makes a final, binding decision based on the evidence and submissions provided. 

A BJDR hearing must be conducted entirely under oath, and no part of the hearing may occur in the absence of a party or their counsel. The BJDR process is voluntary. All parties must consent before the court can order a BJDR hearing, and once consent is given, a party cannot withdraw unless all parties agree, or the court grants leave. Failure to participate after consenting may result in the judge making final decisions based on the evidence available.  

Evidence in the BJDR process follows a more flexible approach. Judges may consider affidavit materials, relevant reports, and other reliable information, even when they do not strictly comply with the formal rules of evidence. Third‑party reports such as business valuations or assessments by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer may be considered, although live testimony from non‑party witnesses is not available in the BJDR process. 

BJDR decisions are binding and are typically explained orally, with the judge providing an endorsement containing the terms of the order. Detailed written reasons are not generally provided, emphasizing the streamlined nature of the process. 

Is BJDR Right for You?  

BJDR can be utilized in many family law disputes, including issues involving parenting time, decision‑making responsibilities, child and spousal support, and property matters.  

BJDR may be a good fit if:  

1. The issues in the matter are focused; 

2. Both parties desire finality;  

3. The matter does not involve significant credibility issues that require cross-examination;  

4. If oral evidence is relied on at the hearing, it will be from the parties themselves;  

5. It is reasonable that the issues at hand can be resolved in a summary manner;  

BJDR may not be a good fit if: 

1. There are safety concerns or vulnerabilities between the parties; 

2. If credibility is at issue, which requires cross-examination;  

3. Financial disclosure is incomplete; or  

4. The matter falls within the Rule 43 exceptions, which include,  

   • Cases that are proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act,  

   • Cases involving interjurisdictional support orders, and or  

   • Cases involving an international child abduction.  

Final Thoughts 

BJDR offers a meaningful alternative for individuals seeking a faster, simpler, and more collaborative way to resolve their disputes without losing the certainty and enforceability of a court‑ordered outcome. While not suitable for every case, it offers an important option for parties seeking a resolution without the delay, cost, or procedural complexity of a full trial.  

If you think the BJDR process is right for you, contact a member of our family law team today to see how we can help.