Ontario Civil Rules Reform: What’s Changing in Appeals

This overview explains the proposed appeal reforms in Ontario’s Civil Rules Review, focusing on how the Rules would clarify the final vs. interlocutory distinction, streamline routes and timelines, and reduce unnecessary delay and cost on appeal.  

Introduction 

Appeal routes and classifications in Ontario are notoriously confusing and can cause costly detours—misfiled appeals, late leave motions, and mid‑proceeding stays that slow cases to a crawl. The proposal tackles these pain points at their source by clarifying what is final vs. interlocutory, aligning routes and timelines, expanding what a single appellate judge can do, and writing key common law tests into the Rules so they are easier to follow. The goal is simple: faster, clearer, and fairer appeals without sacrificing accuracy or access to justice.  

Changes — Appeals 

1. Clarifying the final vs. interlocutory order distinction

Confusion over final vs. interlocutory orders leads to rejected or improper filings and delay. The proposal would set an exhaustive list of orders treated as final, appealable to the Court of Appeal without leave. Examples include orders that dispose of a proceeding (liability, damages, or both), dismissals of motions to set aside default judgment, jurisdictional determinations, orders that finally dispose of one or more causes of action, and a narrow class of orders essential to the administration of justice (e.g., contempt).  

All other orders would be interlocutory. The Rules would include a non‑exhaustive schedule of interlocutory examples to guide practice (such as orders affecting non‑parties, refusals to strike, refusals to amend to add a new cause of action, refusals to add parties, and certain service or release rulings).  

Where an order has both final and interlocutory aspects, it would be appealable to the Court of Appeal as of right. 

To prevent route‑fights from derailing appeals, every Superior Court order would identify whether it is final or interlocutory, the correct appellate court, and the filing deadline. That designation would itself be challengeable—but if it proves wrong, the appeal must be transferred to the proper court without penalty for delay.  

2. Appeals of interlocutory orders 

Under the proposal, parties would have two opportunities to appeal an interlocutory order (one mid‑proceeding and again at the end of the proceeding), with all interlocutory orders “merging” with final orders at the end of a proceeding:  

• First, parties can seek leave to appeal interlocutory orders within 15 days. If this timeline is missed, your right to mid-proceeding appeal is extinguished, but you can still appeal at the end of the proceeding. Leave would turn on a revised standard that considers: (i) reason to doubt the correctness of the order, (ii) the point on appeal is of significance to the litigation, (iii) the proposed appeal involves matters of importance, and (iv) whether the interests of justice require an interlocutory appeal rather than waiting for the final order. Importantly, seeking or obtaining this leave would not stay the underlying proceeding unless the leave court orders otherwise. 

• Second, parties can appeal any interlocutory orders at the end of their proceeding as these orders will merge with the final order and be appealable as of right. This ability to appeal interlocutory orders as part of the final order at the end of a proceeding will discourage unnecessary mid-proceeding leave applications and promote efficiency. 

Why this matters: You can still correct serious errors mid‑case, but the default is to keep cases moving and deal with interlocutory rulings at the end. 

3. Separating the appeal rules for different courts 

The proposals recommend consolidating amendments to Rules 61 and 62 to provide three discrete and clear sets of rules for different appeal courts—one each for the Court of Appeal, the Divisional Court, and the Superior Court of Justice—tailored to each court’s processes and filing requirements.  

Why this matters: Fewer cross‑references, less guesswork, and clearer compliance for counsel and self‑represented litigants.  

4. Increasing single judge motions and limiting panel reviews 

Single appellate judges would be empowered to decide more motions to increase efficiency and reduce cost. Panel review would be limited to decisions that go to the merits of an appeal (as of right or with leave, depending on the issue). Suggested amendments include enabling a single Court of Appeal judge to hear motions to quash, dismiss for delay or abandonment, and making certain procedural orders unreviewable. Parallel legislative amendments to the Courts of Justice Act are recommended to maximize the scope of what a single judge can adjudicate on motions. 

Why this matters: Faster, cheaper appellate motion practice while preserving panels for substantive matters.  

5. Other proposed appeal reforms 

The proposal would also codify frequently used common law tests in the Rules such extensions of time (to file or perfect), expedited appeals, and fresh evidence on appeal. It would also expressly authorize appellate case management and align the appellate approach to costs with the Superior Court’s framework.  

Why this matters: Writing settled tests and tools into the Rules promotes consistency, predictability, and access—especially for unrepresented parties. 

6. Consultation feedback 

Stakeholders generally supported clarifying routes, simplifying procedures, and requiring orders to specify their nature and the proper appeal path. There was support for more single‑judge motions to reduce backlog, with cautions to safeguard fairness for vulnerable litigants and to reserve panels for substantive motions.  

7. Overall Recommendations 

• Provide an exhaustive list of final orders, define interlocutory orders with illustrative examples, and require every order to specify its classification, appellate route, and deadline.  

• Deem interlocutory orders to merge with the final order and become appealable as of right at the end of proceedings.  

• Revise the mid‑proceeding leave standard; clarify that leave applications do not stay the proceeding absent order; and set 15‑day filing windows for leave and responses, with late filers defaulting to end‑of‑case review.  

• Replace current appeal rules with court‑specific sets for the Court of Appeal, Divisional Court, and Superior Court of Justice.  

• Consider legislative and rule changes to expand single‑judge motion powers and limit panel reviews to merits issues.  

• Codify tests for extensions of time, expedited appeals, and fresh evidence; enable appellate case management; and harmonize appellate costs with the Superior Court regime.