Ontario Civil Litigation Reforms: The New Three‑Track Procedural Framework Explained

Introduction 

Ontario’s civil justice system is moving to a court‑managed, faster, and more predictable framework. At its core are firm, early hearing dates and a new three‑track model—Application, Summary, and Trial—that matches process to the needs and value of the case. Below is a high‑level overview of the proposals in “The Procedural Framework for All Matters,” with plain explanations of what they mean for your files and practice. 

The Need to Set Early Dispositive Hearing Date

Setting an early, firm date for a dispositive hearing is the anchor of the new model. Fixed dates focus minds, encourage realistic settlement, and reduce procedural skirmishing. Adjournments will be rare and granted only in exceptional circumstances by the Regional Senior Justice (or designate). 

The Need for Increased Case Management and Shorter Timetables 

Ontario will shift from party‑driven pacing to “light‑touch” court management. Early conferences will set timetables and keep matters moving. The aim is to reach a dispositive hearing roughly two years from close of pleadings, with stricter enforcement of interim deadlines and meaningful consequences for non‑compliance.  

The Need to Eliminate Failed Summary Judgment Motions 

The current model too often burns time and money on summary judgment motions that end with “trial required.” The proposal replaces that with a path where any matter sent to a Summary Hearing must be finally decided at that hearing. No more failed summary judgment motions. 

The Two‑Track System Proposed in the Consultation Paper 

The initial consultation floated two streams: “Presumptive Summary Proceedings” and “everything else,” with the ability to move matters to a summary disposition. Feedback supported a summary route but asked for clearer streaming and limited oral evidence where proportionate.  

The Revised Proposal: A Three Track System 

After consultation, the proposals evolved into three tracks: 

• Application Track  

• Summary Track  

• Trial Track  

Two tracks (Application and Summary) culminate in a “Paper Record+” Summary Hearing, where the judge can, in rare cases, permit limited oral evidence to ensure fairness and proportionality.  

The Proposed New Application Track

Cases that statute or Rule 14.05(3)(a)–(g.1) currently treat as applications move onto a dedicated Application Track. On issuance, the claimant books a Directions Conference. The judge: 

• Confirms suitability for the track  

• Sets a Summary Hearing date and time allocation  

• Orders a bespoke timetable (further pleadings if needed, witness statements, reliance documents, expert reports where appropriate, cross‑examinations if warranted, optional mediation, and factums)  

Process is tailored to the nature of the application.  

The Proposed New Summary Track 

This is the presumptive path for lower‑value or straightforward matters: 

• Claims exclusively for money, real property, or personal property where total value exceeds Small Claims but is under $500,000 (exclusive of interest and costs)  

• Mortgage enforcement  

• Liquidated damages claims  

• Construction lien claims  

• Contested estate claims  

After close of pleadings, parties attend a Directions Conference. The judge fixes the Summary Hearing date and a timetable for up‑front evidence (witness statements and reliance documents), any targeted supplemental disclosure, out‑of‑court cross‑examinations, mandatory mediation, and factums. The Summary Hearing is a Paper Record+ process with discretion for limited oral evidence in exceptional cases. No costs cap is proposed at this time, recognising wide variation in case value and complexity. 

The Proposed New Trial Track 

All other matters proceed on the Trial Track. Key features include: 

• Up‑front evidence (witness statements for party witnesses; will‑say for non‑party witnesses at the appropriate stage; reliance documents; expert timetable) 

• Focused examinations (time‑limited to 90 minutes per party)  

• A “One‑Year Scheduling Conference” after close of pleadings (or one year after issuance if no defence/default), where the court sets firm dates for mediation (if needed), trial management, and trial 

• Conventional trial as the default dispositive hearing  

Transferring Between Tracks 

A Directions Conference judge may transfer matters between the Summary and Trial Tracks to ensure proportionality and fairness. Application Track cases remain within that track due to their bespoke, statute‑anchored nature.  

Consequences for Pleading to the Improper Track

If a case is pleaded onto the wrong track, the court may order a transfer and impose appropriate directions and potential cost consequences. The message is simple: choose the right track early; the court will enforce proportional routing. 

Consultation Feedback 

Stakeholders broadly supported earlier dispositive dates, reduced motion culture, and a stronger summary route—while asking for: 

• Limited oral evidence tools where fairness demands it 

• Track flexibility to avoid a one‑size‑fits‑all approach  

• Realistic timelines and resourcing to make conferences and hearing dates meaningful 

These inputs drove the move from two to three tracks, the Paper Record+ discretion for oral evidence, mandatory mediation on the Summary Track, and clearer transfer powers.

Recommendations of the Civil Rules Review Working Group 

• Eliminate Rules 20 and 76 and adopt the three‑track model  

• Fix early dispositive hearing dates and significantly restrict adjournments  

• Embed standard, shorter timetables and enforce them  

• Allow transfers between Summary and Trial Tracks where proportionate  

• Set out consequences for pleading to the improper track