Introduction

Ontario’s civil litigation landscape is on the cusp of its most significant overhaul in decades. The Phase Two Consultation Report, released in April 2025 by the Ontario Civil Rules Review Working Group^[1], has sparked widespread commentary—applause in some corners, apprehension in others. While the overarching goal of modernization is shared by most, the specifics of implementation remain under discussion.

More than a few lawyers at mediation have asked me what’s really happening with Ontario’s rule reforms. Which ones are going through? Which ones are getting pushback? And when is all this supposed to happen? I’ve done a deep dive—and this is what Bay Street is saying.

This blog provides a practical update on the state of the proposed 2025 reforms to the Rules of Civil Procedure. Drawing on expert analysis from several big Bay Street law firms, I highlight which reforms are likely to proceed, which remain controversial, and what the roadmap toward implementation currently looks like.

Likely to Be Implemented

1. Prelitigation Protocols for Personal Injury and Similar Claims

These include the now-familiar requirement for plaintiffs to serve a “Letter of Claim” 90 days before commencing formal proceedings. The consensus is that these measures will promote early case clarity and settlement opportunities. The legal community broadly supports this component as workable and constructive^[2].

2. Extension of the Limitation Period to Three Years

A proposed extension from two to three years for most claims is viewed as a logical corollary to the pre-litigation protocol. Few stakeholders oppose the change, and it is expected to pass with the rest of the pre-claim package^[3].

3. Shift to EvidenceFirst Model

Front-loading litigation with early witness statements, reliance-based disclosure, and sworn written interrogatories is widely supported in principle. The reform is expected to improve trial preparedness and reduce procedural gamesmanship^[4].

4. Mandatory Scheduling Conferences with Firm Trial Timelines

Replacing motion-heavy trial scheduling with a single court-managed Scheduling Conference—typically within a year of claim issuance—is seen as a welcome modernization. A two-year presumptive trial window is expected to become standard^[5].

5. Joint Experts and Standardized Reports

The move toward single, joint experts and uniform expert report formats mirrors trends in other common-law jurisdictions. These measures are intended to streamline trial preparation and reduce costs^[6].

6. Provincewide Mandatory Mediation

The proposal to expand mandatory mediation beyond Toronto, Ottawa, and Windsor has been met with broad support among large firms and institutional stakeholders. Bay Street commentators have largely embraced the idea, viewing it as a natural extension of the court’s push toward early dispute resolution and active case management.

While some concerns have been raised about regional readiness and mediator availability in smaller jurisdictions, most agree the benefits outweigh the risks. Making mediation mandatory across the province could standardize litigation culture, encourage earlier settlement discussions, and help reduce pressure on the trial system—particularly if paired with front-loaded disclosure and Scheduling Conferences.

Firms have emphasized that to succeed, the expansion must be accompanied by investment in mediator infrastructure and clear timelines, ideally tied to early procedural milestones such as the proposed Scheduling Conference. On balance, this is seen as one of the less controversial and more achievable reforms in the package, with implementation viewed as likely, even if regionally staggered^[7].

Still Hotly Contested

1. Elimination of Oral Discovery

No proposal has drawn more fire. The complete removal of oral discovery, even in simplified form, has been criticized by personal injury litigators and commercial counsel alike. The Ontario Bar Association has urged a reconsideration^[8].

2. Reliance-Based Disclosure and Redfern Schedules

While some see Redfern schedules as more efficient, others argue they will limit fair access to relevant information—particularly without oral discovery as a compensating safeguard^[9].

3. Early and Detailed Medical Disclosure in the Pre-Claim Phase

Critics, including plaintiff-side lawyers and trauma-informed practice advocates, have warned that requiring full medical disclosure before a claim is even filed puts injured and vulnerable plaintiffs at a procedural disadvantage^[10].

4. Mandatory Cooperation Duties and Sanctions

Inspired by England’s CPR regime^[11], this proposal would impose a duty to cooperate and grant judge’s discretion to impose full indemnity costs or evidentiary sanctions for non-cooperative behavior. Some welcome the discipline; others view it as vague and potentially punitive^[12].

Implementation Timeline

• July 2025 – Official summary of stakeholder feedback expected.
• Fall 2025 – Final drafting of Phase Three regulations.
• Early to mid-2026 – Expected implementation, beginning with the pre-litigation protocol^[13].

Due to sustained criticism, particularly over the elimination of oral discovery, it is anticipated that the Working Group may adopt a compromise—possibly retaining discovery for complex or high-value matters, or phasing in reforms gradually.

Summary

On track for implementation:

• Pre-litigation protocol + 3-year limitation extension
• Early evidence disclosure (witness statements, expert reports)
• Firm trial deadlines and one-year Scheduling Conferences
• Joint expert presumptions and standardized formats

Still uncertain:

• Total elimination of oral discovery
• Reliance-only disclosure regime
• Pre-claim medical document disclosure
• Mandatory cooperation and judicial sanctions

Ontario’s personal injury bar should begin adjusting intake procedures, evidence development workflows, and trial strategy timelines in anticipation of these rule changes. While not all proposals may survive in final form, the overall direction—toward earlier engagement, greater transparency, and reduced procedural redundancy—is unlikely to change.