Ontario Civil Rules Review: Enforcement Reforms at a Glance

Enforcement is where court orders become real. The proposal recognizes that winning a judgment should not be the easy part, while collecting on it is slow, costly, and uncertain. The Enforcement section recommends practical fixes to lower cost and speed up recovery—with clearer routes to garnish bank accounts, simpler forms, firmer case management for contempt, and full recovery of enforcement costs. Below is a high-level guide to what is changing and why it matters for Ontario litigators.  

Introduction 

The Working Group’s message is simple: court orders must be obeyed, and enforcement should be fast, proportionate, and effective. Today, judgment creditors face avoidable hurdles—leave motions after six years, repetitive garnishment paperwork, limited access to debtor banking details, and cumbersome contempt processes. The proposed reforms target those pain points. Expect cleaner rules, fewer dead ends, and better tools to compel compliance and recover money – whether damages or costs. 

Removing the Leave Requirement to Issue Writs of Seizure and Sale and Notices of Garnishment More than Six Years after Judgment 

Under current rules, creditors need leave to issue writs and garnishments after six years. The test is easy to meet but still costs time and money. The proposal removes the leave requirement entirely. Writs would still expire after six years unless renewed (the renewal step remains simple and serves to clear stale writs). The policy aim is clear: a judgment is an ongoing obligation; delay should not shield a debtor.  

Omnibus Requisitions of Notices of Garnishment 

A separate requisition and affidavit are often prepared for each garnishee, despite the Rule contemplating multiple notices on one filing. Under the new proposal, a single requisition with a common affidavit can support multiple notices of garnishment. This reduces duplication and cuts filing cost and delay.  

Access to Information about a Judgment Debtor’s Bank Accounts 

Because garnishment under the Bank Act depends on serving the right branch, knowing the branch matters. Debtors may evade disclosure in judgment debtor examinations, and third‑party motions are resource‑intensive. The proposal creates a targeted production order—brought in writing, on notice to the financial institution but not to the debtor—requiring a bank to disclose only: 

• the branch where each account (sole or joint) is held; and 

• whether the account currently has a positive balance. 

Safeguards include: proof of a final judgment; basic debtor identifiers (e.g., date of birth and last known address, or corporate profile); a 60‑day waiting period from when payment is due; bank notice and right to object; a ban on notifying the debtor; and reasonable bank fees payable by the creditor (recoverable as part of the judgment). This is a narrow, privacy‑conscious fix that gives creditors the minimum information needed to garnish effectively. 

Active Case Management of Contempt Hearings 

Contempt is quasi‑criminal and must be handled with due rigour. The proposal requires contempt motions to go first to a Directions Conference. The judge will set a clear roadmap (evidence format, timetable, and hearing date). Moving parties must file particulars, certify full disclosure, and state whether viva voce or affidavit evidence is sought. Costs will reflect the gravity of contempt: failed contempt motions presumptively attract full indemnity costs payable to the alleged contemnor; contemnors pay full indemnity costs in addition to any penalty.  

Summary Contempt Hearings for Non-Compliance with Judgment Debtor Examinations 

Unlike the Small Claims Court, the Rules lack a streamlined path to address non‑attendance or refusal to answer at judgment debtor examinations. The proposal adds a summary procedure—modelled on Small Claims rule 20.11—to quickly address non‑compliance tied to debtor examinations. This creates fast, predictable consequences that deter delay.  

Recoverability of Enforcement Costs 

Rule 60.19 lists limited recoverable enforcement costs. The proposal expands this: a successful creditor can recover full indemnity enforcement costs. This encourages compliance, deters tactical obstruction, and makes creditors whole when they must spend to enforce a court order. 

Consultation Feedback 

Feedback was limited but largely supportive. The bar endorsed simpler, cheaper enforcement, and practical access to bank branch location and positive-balance information. Banks flagged privacy, fraud, and operational concerns; the proposal narrows disclosure to essential data, builds in authentication details, and allows fixed, reasonable processing fees.  

The following recommendations were made by the Civil Rules Review Working Group: 

• Eliminate the requirement of obtaining leave to issue writs of seizure and sale and garnishments after six years.  

• Amend Rule 60.08(6) and Form 60G to allow multiple garnishments on one requisition and affidavit.  

• Create a narrow production order (motion in writing, notice to bank, no notice to debtor) requiring disclosure of the debtor’s account branch location and whether a positive balance exists, with specified prerequisites and timelines.  

• Case‑manage contempt via Directions Conferences with clear procedures and robust, proportionate costs.  

• Add a summary contempt route for failures tied to judgment debtor examinations.  

• Amend Rule 60.19 to permit recovery of full indemnity enforcement costs.