Jury Trials Still Exist—but Their Future Is Shrinking

Ontario remains one of the few provinces where civil jury trials—especially in personal injury and MVA cases—are still regularly used^[1]. Historically, they’ve accounted for roughly one‑in‑five civil trials, and motor vehicle cases make up the majority of those juries^[2].

Rules today prohibit jury trials in lower-value claims, and that prohibition will soon reach an even broader range of disputes. Jury trials are already unavailable in Small Claims Court, which currently has a monetary limit of $35,000 and will, as of October 2025, handle cases up to $50,000^[3]. This expansion means that an even larger share of personal injury and other civil disputes—many of which would once have proceeded in Superior Court with a right to a jury—will be resolved in a judge-alone forum. Combined with the existing bar on juries under the Simplified Procedure in Rule 76 for claims up to $200,000, the practical result is that the vast majority of lower- and mid-value civil claims in Ontario are now determined without a jury, leaving full jury trials increasingly confined to higher-value and more complex cases.

Meanwhile, many observers argue that judges alone often deliver higher, fairer settlements in chronic‑pain and concussion cases—recent awards range between $225K–$250K^[4] For example, Sanson v Paterson, 2022 ONSC 2972^[5], Justice William Black awarded $250,000 in general damages for a mild, traumatic brain injury followed by post-concussive symptoms. In Higashi v Chiarot^[6], 2021 ONSC 8201, Justice Marc Smith awarded $225,000 to a plaintiff who suffered soft tissue injuries and a mild traumatic brain injury and post-concussive syndrome.

Calls for Elimination of Civil Jury Trials

There is growing momentum in Ontario—fuelled in part by pandemic-driven backlogs and systemic inefficiencies—to abolish most civil jury trials. Many within the legal community, particularly those acting for plaintiffs, argue that jury trials are inefficient and costly, imposing a burden not only on the parties but also on the public resources of the court system^[7]. They contend that the structure of jury trials limits what can be explained to jurors about crucial issues such as statutory deductibles, threshold requirements, and the impact of collateral benefits, resulting in verdicts that can be skewed or disconnected from the true value of the claim^[8]. Critics further note that the current framework often works to the advantage of insurers, since jurors are not told about the built-in deductible and may therefore return lower damages awards than they would if they had the full picture^[9].

The Court Tradition and Its Weakening Grip

Ontario’s jury system is rooted in tradition—but civil jury rights are not constitutional, unlike criminal ones^[10]. Judges now frequently strike jury notices, especially in complex cases, deferring to judge‑alone trials to avoid inefficiency or confusion^[11].

The Rules of Civil Procedure are being overhauled, with changes proposed for early disclosure, pre‑litigation protocols, and streamlined processes^[12]. These reforms are expected to roll out early 2026. While not explicitly about juries, these reforms reflect a broader push toward efficiency and clarity, indirectly favoring judge-only pathways.

A Mediator’s Perspective on the Civil Jury System

From the mediator’s chair, the civil jury system is both a safeguard and a gamble. On one hand, juries represent a deep-rooted democratic tradition, allowing ordinary citizens to participate directly in the administration of justice. This can be especially valuable where community values and common sense are needed to assess credibility or fairness. A diverse jury may temper overly technical or rigid interpretations of the law, bringing a human element to damages assessments that a judge, bound by precedent. might otherwise limit.

On the other hand, the unpredictability of juries is precisely what can make them the riskiest option in high-stakes personal injury and motor vehicle cases. Jurors often enter the courtroom with little understanding of the legal constraints that govern the outcome, and in Ontario they are not told about statutory deductibles, threshold rules, or collateral benefits^[13]. This creates a risk that their verdict will be shaped more by perception than by the complete legal and factual picture. In some urban centres, particularly Toronto, there is also a growing skepticism toward personal injury claims, especially those involving chronic pain, psychological injury, or disputed work capacity. From a mediation standpoint, this means the trial outcome may hinge not only on the quality of the evidence, but also on the composition of six people who may prefer to be anywhere else.

Mediation offers a fundamentally different dynamic. The parties retain control over the resolution, rather than surrendering their fate to strangers whose decision-making process is opaque and unreviewable. It allows for a candid, confidential discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case, without the distortions that can occur in a jury room. While the jury system still has its place, particularly for cases where public vindication or a moral stand is part of the strategy, from a mediator’s standpoint, its unpredictability is more often a liability than an asset—especially when settlement can deliver certainty, privacy, and finality.

Bottom Line

Ontario’s civil jury system in personal injury and MVA cases is alive—but visibly bruised. It survives in higher-value cases where strategy still makes sense, but the system is increasingly tilted toward judge-only trials for efficiency and fairness. Traditionalists who believe in the jury of one’s peers are losing ground to reformers who demand speed, clarity, and justice that understands the details, like deductibles and thresholds.

In this climate, mediation offers something a civil jury trial can’t—control over your own destiny. Instead of entrusting the outcome to six reluctant jurors plucked from their daily routines—people who may resent being away from their families, jobs, and obligations—you remain an active participant in shaping resolution. In urban centres like Toronto, jurors can be particularly skeptical of personal injury claimants, especially where they suspect an exaggeration of symptoms, limitations, or inability to work. Whether rightly or wrongly, some see injured plaintiffs as seeking a windfall rather than compensation, and this bias can quietly erode a claim’s value. Mediation sidesteps that minefield, replacing the unpredictability of a potentially unsympathetic jury with a structured, confidential process aimed at a negotiated settlement that reflects the true merits of the case.