Pre‑Trial Procedures and Trial Management Conferences: What Ontario Litigators Need to Know Now

Introduction 

Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure Reform Proposal reshapes the road to trial. The focus is simple: settle earlier where appropriate, manage trials tightly when settlement isn’t possible, and reduce delay and cost throughout. The reforms expand mandatory mediation beyond Toronto, Ottawa, and Windsor, remove settlement bargaining from pre‑trials, introduce binding judicial dispute resolution for suitable cases, and replace traditional pre‑trials with targeted trial management conferences. For practitioners, the signal is clear: earlier case definition, disciplined timelines, and more efficient hearings. 

Pre‑Trial Procedures — Mandatory Mediation and Changes to Pre‑Trial Conferences 

The proposal enlarges mandatory mediation across Ontario and recalibrates the role of pre‑trial events. The rationale is grounded in access to justice: mediation resolves many matters sooner and at lower cost, while pre‑trial settlement discussions consume scarce judicial time and create a bottleneck that delays trial scheduling.  

Under the new model, mandatory mediation becomes province‑wide, with limited carve‑outs and judicial discretion to exempt unsuitable cases. Application Track matters remain discretionary for mediation (subject to existing estates rules); Construction Act and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act proceedings, most Class Proceedings Act matters pre‑certification, and cases alleging abuse are also excluded or discretionary. Summary Track matters—often lower value but high‑impact for parties— will be presumptively subject to mandatory mediation, subject to judicial discretion, in recognition of their strong settlement potential. Mediation is embedded within tighter, court‑set timelines, aligned with the elimination of pre‑trial conferences and the objective of encouraging resolution at an earlier stage, before significant trial preparation and costs are incurred. 

Roster mediation rates will be modernized, with a province‑wide roster, quality standards, and virtual delivery to expand access and reduce geographic friction.  

At the same time, the settlement component of judicial pre‑trials will be removed. Pre‑trials will no longer be the place for judicial settlement bargaining by default. Instead, the court may order a separate judicial settlement conference where appropriate and resources permit. This change frees judges to focus their limited time where it matters most and encourages parties to engage seriously in mandatory mediation, rather than waiting for a second “kick at the can.”  

Pre‑Trial Procedures — Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution 

Borrowing from the Family Law Rules, binding judicial dispute resolution (JDR) will be available, on consent, for straightforward civil cases. The format is streamlined: a single day with a judge who first attempts to mediate; if issues remain, the judge summarily adjudicates them on the record, drawing on what was said during the session. The process is suited to narrow disputes with limited credibility issues and no need for non‑party viva voce evidence. It is not a universal solution; it is a proportionate alternative where a full trial would be excessive.  

Pre‑Trial Procedures — Recommendations 

The proposal recommends three core changes. First, expand mandatory mediation province‑wide, maintaining the categories in current Rules 24.1 and 75.1. Second, eliminate the settlement aspect of pre‑trial conferences while preserving discretion to order stand‑alone judicial settlement conferences where they will add value. Third, adopt the Family Law Rule 43 JDR model for civil cases, on consent and with court approval.  

Trial Management Conferences — The Need for Change 

Trials suffer when management happens late or not at all. Judges often spend the opening hours of trial addressing issues that should have been sorted weeks earlier. The result is wasted time on undisputed facts, inefficient document handling, avoidable evidentiary skirmishes, and overlong trials. The current pre‑trial system, dominated by settlement efforts, does not reliably deliver focused trial management. The proposal remedies this by making trial management conferences (TMCs) a standard, structured step for all Trial Track matters.  

Trial Management Conferences — Proposed Reforms 

TMCs will occur in every Trial Track case, ideally four to five weeks before trial and, where feasible, before the trial judge. The goal is a tailored, efficient hearing. A prescribed TMC checklist will drive consistency and discipline across the province. Key features include: 

• Written openings by default in non‑jury trials, served in advance to sharpen issues and reduce trial time. 

• Chronologies exchanged pre‑TMC, with admissions or denials to streamline proof; the court may direct preparation of an agreed chronology for facts not in dispute. 

• Two mandatory Joint Books of Documents: one for documents agreed authentic and admissible (with any limits on truth of contents flagged), and one for disputed documents with identified objections. The indices double as Evidence Act notice where applicable. 

• Clear evidentiary boundaries anchored in the up‑front evidence model: party evidence‑in‑chief presumptively confined to disclosed witness statements, reliance documents, and focused examinations; non‑party witness statements taken as read in non‑jury trials unless the court orders otherwise. 

• Technology, timing, and possible “chess clock” limits addressed and fixed, with a strong emphasis on proportionality. 

• Expert management linked to the broader expert evidence reforms, including presumptive expert conferencing in Trial Track cases and coordinated timelines with mediation and the TMC. 

Trial Management Conferences — Consultation Feedback 

Most consultees supported more rigorous trial management, recognizing its potential to shorten trials and improve predictability. Concerns focused on judicial capacity to staff TMCs, the difficulty of aligning the TMC with the eventual trial judge, and the risk of over‑prescription. The Working Group responded by keeping the TMC focus practical and by deferring any fixed trial “caps” to future, subject‑specific consultation. 

Trial Management Conferences — Recommendations 

The proposal recommends a mandatory TMC for all Trial Track cases, supported by a standardized TMC form and checklist, and compulsory chronology and JBD processes on set timelines. These tools embed discipline, narrow issues, and reserve precious trial time for what truly requires adjudication.  

Why This Matters 

For Ontario litigators, these changes shift work earlier, reduce procedural friction, and focus judicial resources where they do the most good. Expect firmer deadlines, front‑loaded substance, and fewer opportunities to defer hard decisions. Mediation will happen more often and earlier; judicial settlement involvement will be targeted rather than routine; and trial preparation will be concrete, documented, and enforceable. The result is a faster, more proportionate path to resolution, whether by settlement or trial.