In 1985, Ontario undertook a major codification of its civil justice system—transforming scattered procedural principles into a unified set of Rules of Civil Procedure. That reform came after years of study, broad consultation, and intense debate within the legal profession. At the time, I was a 20 year old undergraduate student in Newfoundland,  just on the cusp of entering my first year of law school in Ontario. The ink on the new Rules was barely dry, and the bar was already grappling with how to adapt. And adapt they did—out of necessity. The profession absorbed the changes through practical experience, judicial interpretation, and a collective commitment to making the system work.

Now,  after four decades and my evolution into a full-time mediator in the same Ontario civil litigation system, we are again staring down the barrel of structural change. The Civil Rules Review Working Group’s Phase 2 Consultation Paper[1], released in April 2025, proposes some of the most sweeping amendments in my memory as a litigator in Ontario. Chief among them is a near-total overhaul of the discovery regime. Gone would be the familiar process of oral examination and incremental disclosure. In its place: up-front witness statements, tightly tailored document production, and early evidence exchange meant to streamline litigation and curb cost.

This article reviews those proposals—comparing them to the current system—and explores what they would mean for litigators across Ontario. Special focus is placed on their implications for the personal injury and insurance bar, where high-volume claims, credibility battles, and cost sensitivities could collide with these new procedural demands in unpredictable ways.

From Oral Discovery to Sworn Statements

The most dramatic change proposed is the elimination of oral examinations for discovery in the majority of cases, replaced instead by early delivery of sworn or affirmed witness statements (p. 10). The intent is to front-load evidence, reduce one-upmanship, and streamline trial preparation. Under the current Rule 31, oral discovery has long been the backbone of civil procedure, offering a powerful tool for testing the opposing party’s evidence. But critics argue it has become inefficient, expensive, and prone to obstruction.

In its place, the proposed system would require parties to disclose their key witnesses and deliver full, narrative witness statements at an early stage—akin to what is required in jurisdictions like the UK[2]. While this may promote earlier settlement discussions and clearer issues for trial, it risks undermining the adversarial advantage of oral testing. Counsel will need to frontload their case theory and evidence much earlier, which could increase costs at the outset and limit flexibility as facts develop.

Refocusing Document Disclosure

The Consultation Paper also proposes redefining the scope of document disclosure from the current relevance-based standard under Rule 30.02(1) to a reliance-based test. Specifically, each party would be obligated to disclose:

• Documents they intend to rely on to prove their case; and
• Documents that are adverse and known to be in their possession, control, or power (p. 13).

This narrower approach is intended to reduce over-disclosure and the volume of largely irrelevant material exchanged between parties. It also carries the expectation of increased candour and good faith, but in practice, it may generate disputes about what qualifies as “adverse,” particularly when parties define harm differently. One risk is that without a duty to disclose all relevant documents, parties may inadvertently (or strategically) withhold important context unless explicitly requested.

Supplementary Disclosure Tools: Redfern Schedules and Interrogatories

To supplement these initial disclosures, two mechanisms are proposed:

• Redfern Schedules[3], adopted from arbitration, which allow a party to request a specific document or category of documents with stated relevance and justification (p. 14);
• Limited written interrogatories, capped and controlled by rule, as a means to clarify issues without opening the floodgates to written discovery abuse (p. 15).

Both tools are designed to shift the culture of discovery from fishing expeditions to targeted, proportional disclosure. Practically speaking, this will require counsel to invest more time crafting precise and well-justified requests, and judges will need to engage more directly with contested disclosure issues. While more efficient on paper, these mechanisms may increase front-end litigation costs and encourage motions if the scope of initial disclosure is contested.

Litigation Readiness and Strategic Implications

Under this proposed model, readiness becomes everything. Counsel will need to assemble their case theory, witness narratives, and key documents long before the traditional pre-trial phase. That means increased reliance on early factual investigation and possibly third-party experts. The procedural economy may improve, but the burden of early strategy and resourcing may fall hardest on sole counsel with modest practices and limited resources.

However, while the rules aim to displace oral discovery, they leave open the possibility of judicial discretion to permit it in exceptional cases (p. 12). This creates an uneven playing field: well-resourced litigants may still press for oral discovery where they deem it advantageous, while smaller players may find themselves at a disadvantage.

Shifting the Culture of Civil Litigation

What these proposals reflect is a broader effort to shift Ontario’s litigation culture from reactive litigation to proactive disclosure. The hope is that by narrowing the issues earlier, parties can reach resolution sooner and avoid needless cost. But this shift also requires a reset in how counsel prepare files. Gone are the days of posturing in discoveries while holding strategic cards close to the chest. Instead, the emphasis moves to transparency, case framing, and early evidence gathering.

Whether these reforms succeed will depend heavily on how they are implemented, monitored, and enforced. The court must be given the resources to deal with the inevitable increase in front-end procedural motions and disputes. Judges will also need training on how to manage the new disclosure frameworks in a consistent and predictable manner.

Implications for the Personal Injury Bar and Insurance Litigation

For the personal injury bar—particularly those practicing in motor vehicle accident and insurance litigation—the proposed shift to an upfront evidence model could represent the most significant structural change in decades. The draft rules would replace the current “will say” culture and permissive approach to early-stage discovery with a mandatory exchange of all key documents and expert opinions before an action is even set down for trial. While this may sound efficient in theory, it front-loads litigation costs for plaintiff-side counsel, many of whom already operate on a contingency basis with thin margins. Car accident files, in particular, often turn on evolving medical opinions. Mandating early delivery of reports before the claimant has reached maximum medical recovery risks cementing incomplete narratives, raising both cost and prejudice concerns.

From the defence and insurance perspective, the reforms are a mixed bag. On one hand, earlier disclosure of plaintiff records allows for earlier risk assessment and may facilitate more informed settlement discussions. On the other, it removes the current strategic advantage of staggered production—where defence adjusters often force plaintiffs to “show their hand” before deciding whether to invest in rebuttal experts. The requirement to disclose expert evidence earlier (p. 35) could shorten the litigation, but it may also generate motion-heavy disputes over whether a report was “complete” or “sufficiently particularized” to meet the proposed evidentiary threshold. The risk is that in trying to fix what is seen as delay and inefficiency, the new rules might simply shift the battleground from trial prep to preliminary disclosure skirmishes. Either way, for personal injury lawyers, these reforms are not just procedural, they will go to the essence of the matter.

Conclusion

Ontario is not alone in grappling with the inefficiencies of traditional discovery. But its current proposal to abolish oral discovery in favour of upfront witness statements and narrowed document production is among the most far-reaching in Canada. While the proposed regime may benefit insurers and repeat litigants with strong early file management systems, its demands on early preparation and evidence gathering could disadvantage less resourced parties.

For the personal injury and insurance bar, the front-loading of evidentiary obligations may erode the already fragile balance between access to justice and financial viability, particularly in modest car accident claims. What was once a system that accommodated the evolving nature of injury evidence now risks becoming a procedural bottleneck that favours institutional actors.

The true challenge lies not in writing new rules, but in reshaping litigation behaviour. And that takes more than drafting—it takes cultural shift, judicial leadership, and robust procedural safeguards.

(Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.)