When the System Was Built for a Different Time
I started my legal career in the late 80’s in Ontario, an era when litigation moved at a different pace and served a different professional culture. Files were paper-based. Communication was slower. We had snail mail, no email yet. I used a typewriter, not a desktop computer. It was the era of the Mail Room, no tech support needed yet. Trials, while never common, were treated as the organizing principle of the entire process. The system assumed that thoroughness required repetition, formality, and time, and that these were acceptable trade-offs in the pursuit of justice.
There was also an implicit belief that complexity signaled seriousness. A case that moved slowly, generated motion records, and occupied Court time was understood to be one that mattered. Procedure was not merely a means to an end. It was often treated as the end itself. Lawyers learned to navigate this environment skillfully, judges managed it as best they could, and clients accepted delay as an unfortunate but unavoidable reality.
For a long time, that worldview went largely unquestioned.
How Things Still Work in Practice—For Now
Even today, much of civil litigation continues to reflect those older assumptions. Pleadings are still drafted as though every case will inevitably proceed to trial, even when the practical likelihood is remote. Documentary discovery often grows expansive, producing volume rather than focus. Motions are frequently brought not because they will resolve a dispute, but because they advance positioning. Timelines stretch not because the issues demand it, but because the structure permits and sometimes incentivizes it.
Certain institutional practices have long compounded these inefficiencies. Assignment courts required in-person attendance for matters that were often administrative in nature. Lawyers of record were expected to appear personally, even where no substantive advocacy was required, simply to confirm readiness, report status, or secure dates. Pre-trials, while conceptually valuable, often occurred only after the bulk of litigation costs had already been incurred, limiting their ability to meaningfully narrow issues or promote early resolution.
The area of personal injury litigation in which I practiced for the bulk of my 30+ years before becoming a full-time mediator, offers a particularly clear illustration. Many cases involve relatively narrow liability disputes, predictable damages ranges, and recurring medical evidence. Yet they have traditionally been processed through the full machinery of conventional litigation, complete with extensive discoveries, multiple procedural attendances, and trial scheduling exercises untethered from the realistic prospect of a trial. The cumulative effect has been cost escalation, delay, and procedural fatigue, outcomes that serve neither injured plaintiffs nor institutional defendants, and that strain the system as a whole.
I still remember sitting in a crowded assignment court years ago, looking around the room and recognizing a lineup of some of the most accomplished counsel in the city. One by one, they rose to advise the court clerk that they were present, filled out counsel slips, and waited to briefly address the judge, often for no purpose other than to secure a pre-trial or trial date far in the future. At one point, I leaned over to a colleague and remarked, half in jest, that the collective hourly rate represented in that courtroom at that moment must have been well into six figures. The comment landed because it was true. An extraordinary amount of professional time and cost was being deployed for an exercise that added little substantive value.
What has changed is not so much the persistence of these practices, but the system’s tolerance for them. Courts, governments, and litigants are no longer prepared to accept that inefficiency is simply the price of fairness.
A Shift in First Principles
On October 31, 2025, the Civil Rules Review Working Group submitted its Final Policy Report[1] to the Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Attorney General of Ontario, charting a bold reform agenda designed not merely to refine, but to re-engineer the civil justice process.
The proposed civil justice reforms reflect something more fundamental than procedural adjustment. They signal a recalibration of first principles. The system is no longer being designed around the hypothetical trial. It is being designed around proportionate resolution.
Under the emerging framework, procedure is meant to serve outcomes rather than justify itself. Early identification of the real issues matters more than exhaustive pleading. Targeted disclosure is preferred over indiscriminate production. Judicial involvement is expected earlier and in a more active, managerial role. The emphasis is on narrowing disputes, not preserving every conceivable step that once accompanied them.
This is not a retreat from fairness or due process. It is an acknowledgment that fairness delayed, and fairness priced beyond reach, undermines public confidence in the justice system itself.
From Litigation as Endurance to Litigation as Managed Process
For much of its history, civil litigation rewarded endurance. Parties with greater resources, higher tolerance for delay, or more procedural leverage could gain advantages unrelated to the merits of the dispute. The new direction seeks to rebalance that dynamic.
Early mediation, structured resolution pathways, and judicial triage are no longer framed as optional enhancements, but as central features of a modern justice system. The goal is not to coerce settlement, but to ensure that disputes are addressed at the right time, in the right forum, with the right level of process.
This shift is particularly significant in areas such as personal injury and insurance litigation, where repeat players dominate and systemic efficiency matters. The question is no longer whether parties are willing to engage in mediation, but whether the system can justify allowing cases to drift expensively toward trial when resolution is both foreseeable and achievable much earlier.
Simplicity Without Sacrificing Substance
One of the perennial concerns about reform is that simplification risks oversimplification. There is an understandable fear that nuance will be lost, or that complex cases will be forced into ill-suited procedural boxes.
The more persuasive view is the opposite. By stripping away unnecessary process in routine cases, the system preserves judicial time and attention for the disputes that truly require it. Complexity is no longer assumed. It must be earned by the nature of the issues themselves.
This represents a cultural shift as much as a procedural one. Lawyers will be expected to exercise judgment earlier, to identify what actually matters, and to abandon the reflexive use of every available procedural tool simply because it exists.
Cost, Time, and the Legitimacy of the System
At its core, civil justice reform is about restoring legitimacy. A system that resolves modest disputes over many years, at disproportionate cost, risks losing the confidence of the public it is meant to serve. When access to justice becomes theoretical rather than practical, the system fails its most basic mandate.
The proposed reforms address this directly. Shorter timelines, clearer pathways, and proportionate procedures are not about speed for its own sake. They are about aligning the justice system with the realities of modern disputes and modern lives.
If successful, the result will not be less justice, but better justice, that is intelligible, accessible, and timely.
The Changing Role of the Civil Lawyer
I think these reforms will also reshape what it means to be an effective civil litigator. Technical skill will remain important, but strategic restraint will matter more. The ability to assess risk, evaluate value, and guide clients toward resolution will increasingly define professional excellence.
For those whose practices were built around motion-heavy, delay-tolerant litigation, adjustment will be required. For others, particularly those who have long emphasized early resolution and proportionality, the changes will feel less like disruption and more like overdue alignment.
Looking Ahead
Ontario’s civil justice system is not rejecting its past. It is learning from it. The traditional model served a purpose in its time, but the conditions that sustained it no longer exist. Volume, cost, and public expectations demand a different approach.
What lies ahead is not a diminished system, but a more focused one that measures success not by how much process is deployed, but by how effectively disputes are resolved. If the reforms achieve their objectives, I believe civil justice in Ontario will be faster, fairer, and more credible.
That is not a break with tradition. It is, in many respects, a return to first principles, namely justice that works.