Not long ago, I found myself on the other side of the courtroom—personally represented in a Small Claims Court trial that stretched over three separate days. My professional insurer had retained two very capable counsel on my behalf, one a seasoned litigator, the other a sharp recent call. Together they defended me in the last open case from my personal injury practice, brought by a disgruntled self-represented former client. I had never appeared in Small Claims Court as a party before, and not as counsel for over two decades, so the experience was a revealing one.

While my counsel were ultimately successful, what struck me most was how different the process felt compared to Superior Court, even though the same rules of evidence applied. The judge went to extraordinary lengths to accommodate the self-represented plaintiff—offering detailed guidance on procedure, admissibility, and even expert evidence requirements—leniencies no lawyer could have expected in a higher court. What should have been a one-day trial became three, spread across months. Yet the courtroom still carried the formal trappings of Superior Court: the elevated bench, the clerk, the counsel tables, audience benches, and even remote testimony through a Zoom link with on a large screen TV. The one clear departure was that counsel were not robed, a small but telling distinction.

This experience has stayed with me, and it frames the discussion that follows: Ontario’s imminent expansion of Small Claims Court jurisdiction to $50,000, a shift that comes just as broader civil justice reforms are poised to reshape procedure in 2026<^[1]. For mediators like me, these changes are more than policy—they will directly shape how, when, and why parties choose to resolve their disputes outside the courtroom

On October 1, 2025, Ontario’s Small Claims Court will quietly undergo one of the most significant changes in its history. The monetary limit for claims will jump from $35,000 to $50,000, and the appeal threshold will rise from $3,500 to $5,000^[2]. On paper, it’s a simple adjustment of numbers. In practice, it’s a structural shift that will reshape how many personal injury, employment, and contract disputes are litigated—and, in turn, how they are mediated.

For personal injury litigants with lower-value cases, this expansion is a game-changer. Injuries or property-related losses that fall under the $50,000 mark will now be resolved in a court designed for speed and simplicity, without the cost and formality of a Superior Court action. For employees seeking damages for wrongful dismissal or unpaid wages in the mid-five figures, it means bypassing the more cumbersome Superior Court process entirely. And for business owners and insurers grappling with contract disputes in this range, it offers a faster, less expensive route to a decision.

The most immediate procedural difference is that Small Claims Court does not have juries. Every case is decided by a judge alone, following a streamlined process. The rules of evidence and procedure are simpler, timelines are shorter, and costs are generally lower. That creates an environment where mediation becomes not just a tool, but an integral step toward resolution. Because matters proceed on an accelerated track, I anticipate there will often more willingness from both sides to mediate early, before legal fees begin to overtake the value of the claim.

The expansion will also change the makeup of the parties and representatives in the room. Small Claims Court allows paralegals to act on cases up to the monetary limit, and the more generous ceiling will open the door for paralegal representation in a wider range of disputes. Self-represented litigants—already a fixture in Small Claims—are likely to become even more common. For mediators, that means navigating sessions where one or more parties may not have legal counsel, making process education and expectation management an even bigger part of the job.

From a mediator’s perspective, there is a strategic opportunity here. The increased limit will capture many disputes that, under the old rules, would have been filed in Superior Court and subject to lengthy waits for trial. Now, parties will have the leverage of a faster court process in the background, which can serve as a motivator to settle early. Mediators who understand how to use this procedural backdrop—without making the mediation feel like an ultimatum—will be in a strong position to help parties reach resolution.

Of course, the change is not without its challenges. A surge in filings is inevitable, which could put pressure on the court’s already stretched resources. There will still be disputes that cannot be heard in Small Claims Court—such as those requiring injunctive relief or other non-monetary remedies—that must stay in Superior Court. And for now, limitation periods will continue to run on the existing two-year timeline, meaning claims approaching that mark cannot be delayed in hopes of taking advantage of the higher limit after October 1—though this may shift to a three-year window once the forthcoming civil justice reforms take effect in 2026.

Still, the $50,000 threshold represents a deliberate shift toward greater accessibility in Ontario’s civil justice system. For mediators, it is a call to adapt—understanding the nuances of Small Claims procedure, preparing to work with a wider range of representatives, and integrating the court’s faster timelines into our settlement strategies. In this evolving environment, mediation will not just complement the Small Claims process; it will be one of its driving forces.