Motions Practice: What’s Changing and Why It Matters for Your Files

Ontario’s civil justice reform is set to reshape motions practice. This overview explains  the proposals made by the Ontario Civil Rules Review Working Group  and what a “managed motions market” will look like in practice. The aim is simple: fewer procedural battles, faster substantive outcomes, and lower, more predictable costs.

Introduction

Ontario’s “motions culture” has become a bottleneck. Thousands of motion events each year consume court time, delay hearing dates, and push costs beyond what’s proportionate to the issues at stake. The reform proposal replaces an open, party‑driven motions marketplace with a court‑managed model. Most interlocutory disputes will be screened through short Directions Conferences, with formal motions used only when necessary. The message is clear: prioritize substance over process, keep materials short, set early hearing dates, and stick to them.

1. The Need for Change

Motions have grown into a system‑wide drag. They tend to be expensive, slow, and often tactical. Discovery motions are a particular strain, but the problems are broader. Parties experience long waits for dates, the digital age allows for voluminous records to be easily dropped on parties, inflating costs, and there is little discipline around proportionality. The data shows that these are not just issues in Toronto, but throughout the province. The reform goal is to reset incentives so interlocutory steps move cases forward rather than consume them.

2. The Initial Proposals

The consultation paper proposed a gatekeeping model. Most contested motions would first go to a Directions Conference. At that conference, judges could decide matters, send them to a short, written process, or allow a streamlined oral motion with focused materials and timelines. Some motions would be exempt from the screening process, such as consent/unopposed “basket” motions, urgent without‑notice motions, and some contested motions in writing.

Materials would be brief, with an attested, short submission to provide a minimal evidentiary base. Common motions (like counsel removal) and pleadings motions would be simplified and, where possible, consolidated.

3. Consultation Feedback

During the consultation phase, broad agreement emerged on three points:

• Interlocutory motions often consume disproportionate time and cost.

• Discovery‑related motions are a major pain point.

• Directions Conferences can reduce formal motions if they are properly resourced, timely, and produce usable orders.

Many stakeholders supported more motions in writing, administrative handling of simple procedural orders, and simplification of well‑travelled motions (e.g., Wagg motions, removal of counsel). There was pushback on a single “one‑document” approach for motion records due to evidentiary and cross‑examination concerns. Some warned that eliminating most formal motions could hinder development of the common law, and others supported making formal motions a last resort.

4. The Final Proposals: A New Model for Interlocutory Relief

The final proposal retains gatekeeping but refines the model to be practical and proportionate. Directions Conferences remain the default entry point, and most interlocutory relief requests start with a short, written submission plus a new Interlocutory Relief Form.

The Interlocutory Relief Form replaces the notice of motion and standardises what’s sought, why, and how it should proceed. Directions Conference submissions are short, attested summaries with focused attachments. Judges can decide the dispute at the conference, direct a further short conference with limited extra materials, or schedule a formal motion, setting limits on evidence, cross‑examination time, and factum length.

The final proposal expands the types of motions that are presumptively heard in writing. Certain contested motions would proceed in writing by default (e.g., validating service, venue transfers, non‑party productions), with a path to an oral hearing if truly necessary. Consent/unopposed and without‑notice motions remain in writing as “basket motions.”

Under the final proposal, early, targeted challenges must be raised up front. Once a defence is delivered, the defendant no longer has the right to challenge a claim on the basis of jurisdiction, capacity, venue, no reasonable cause of action, arbitration stays, and consolidation. These must be sought promptly via an early Directions Conference requested in the Notice of Intent.

Pleadings motions are also streamlined via consolidation and a “one-shot” policy. When a party seeks to strike, the respondent files a draft amended pleading with their response. The judge can, uphold the original, approve the amendment, decline to strike and direct narrow issues to proceed (helpful where tenable issues are discernible), or strike without leave where both versions are deficient. This curbs the strike‑amend‑strike loop.

A new Discovery Dispute Chart consolidates issues into a single, short written process with fixed, issue‑by‑issue costs: $500 per issue (or $1,000 for undertakings), plus a $4,000 base to the party that succeeds on the majority. If a party loses more than 15 requests, costs are tripled to deter over‑litigation.

Some other simplifications include:

• Notices of Discontinuance replace most consent dismissal motions.

• Counsel removal is converted from a frequent, near‑automatic motion to a simpler notice‑based process (limited exceptions).

• Wagg motions are targeted for regulatory simplification outside the Rules.

• Greater judicial continuity is encouraged so the same judge can handle conferences, motions, and any Summary Hearing.

What this means in practice is that most interlocutory fights will start and end at a short conference on short papers. If a motion is still needed, it is focused, capped, and scheduled quickly. The system will reward proportionality and early resolution, while penalizing delay and over‑litigation.