Ontario Civil Rules Reform: What’s Changing on Amending Pleadings (Rule 26)

One of the changes proposed by the Ontario Civil Rules Review Working Group is a tightening of the rules for amending pleadings in Ontario’s civil cases. The goal of these proposed changes is to reduce delay without sacrificing fairness, and implementing the amendment procedures into the faster timetable under the up-front evidence model. 

Introduction 

Today, amendments are common and usually permitted, even late in the day. From the perspective of the Working Group, this flexibility often leads to adjournments and delay. The proposed reform shifts the balance: it preserves fairness, but puts real weight on keeping fixed dispositive hearing dates. In short, amendments should not derail the schedule. 

The Need for Change 

The new model aims to fix hearing dates early and stick to them. Under the current approach, late amendments are rarely refused, because courts tend to find that any prejudice can be cured by costs or an adjournment. The proposals treat adjournments themselves as inherently prejudicial to the system’s goals. The change is intended to keep up the pace without losing fairness: justice must not be sacrificed, but delay cannot be the default remedy.  

Consultation Feedback 

Stakeholders who provided feedback on this issue generally wanted more flexibility, but views differed on timing. Some preferred to keep the opportunity for amendments as of right up to the hearing date. Others preferred that amendments be available as of right only to the close of pleadings.  

Overall, consultees cautioned against rigid rules, but accepted that once heavy preparatory steps occur, courts should control amendments to protect the schedule and costs.  

The Proposals 

• Amendments as of right: A party may amend its pleading as of right until it delivers its witness statements and reliance documents. After that point, significant work has been triggered for the other side, so court control is needed.  

• Amendments on consent: After delivery of witness statements/documents, parties may amend on consent at any time if (i) the amendment will not require adjourning any fixed dispositive hearing date and (ii) the parties agree on any timetable changes for additional evidence caused by the amendment.  

• Amendments with leave: If opposed and not as of right, leave will be granted if (i) no adjournment of any fixed dispositive hearing date is required, (ii) the amendment does not materially prejudice the other side’s preparation for the hearing, and (iii) the amending party pays all reasonable costs thrown away on a full‑indemnity basis, unless the need to amend flows from the opponent’s conduct. In exceptional cases, leave may be granted even if an adjournment is needed, guided by factors that include the importance of maintaining fixed dates, whether the issue was foreseeable, the need to do justice between the parties, and the overall prejudice.  

• Adding or substituting parties: A party can add or substitute other parties as of right until the Notice of Claim has been served. After service, the same consent/leave structure applies and the same “no adjournment” and costs principles govern. 

• Misnomer duty and fast correction: A party who believes it was improperly named must advise within seven days and identify the correct party if known. The claimant then has seven days to amend as of right to correct the name without leave.  

Recommendations 

The Working Group recommended amendments to Rule 26 to implement the above framework. These changes align amendment practice with fixed dispositive hearing dates and the new evidence‑up‑front model, while preserving fairness through consent pathways, targeted leave, and clear costs consequences.