The History of Simplified Procedure in Ontario

The concept of the simplified-procedure track under Rule 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure^[1] (Ontario) emerged from a recognition that the Superior Court’s ordinary procedure had become too costly, too slow and too formal for a class of claims whose value lay in an intermediate zone. The purpose of Rule 76 was “to reduce the cost of litigating claims of relatively modest amounts by reducing the amount of civil procedure”^[2] Litigants with modest-value claims, exceeding the Small Claims Court limit but far below high-stakes commercial or catastrophic personal-injury litigation, were frequently deterred by legal fees, long discovery periods, jury obligations and a four-to-ten day trial^[3]. In short, the risk of devoting $100,000+ in legal fees to recover a claim of say $75,000 made many potential actions unviable^[4].

Accordingly, Rule 76 was introduced to bridge that gap, to make Superior Court litigation viable, efficient and proportionate for “modest-value” commercial, tort and contract claims^[5]. Rule 76 was originally introduced in 1996, with significant amendments in 2010 expanding its reach, including making simplified procedure mandatory for most actions up to $100,000. ^[6]

However, experience revealed that relatively few claimants actually used the simplified track, especially in personal-injury litigation. Plaintiffs routinely claimed above $100,000 simply in case future damages crystallized upward, thereby forfeiting the benefits of Rule 76^[7]. Moreover, the cap at $100,000 meant many viable claims remained in the ordinary track, perpetuating backlogs and cost-inefficiencies

Recognizing this, the province (in concert with the Civil Rules Committee) undertook a period of consultation starting in about 2016, engaging the bench, bar and civil-justice stakeholders in reforming Rule 76^[8]. That consultation^[9] culminated in amendments taking effect on January 1, 2020. Under those amendments^[10], the monetary ceiling rose from $100,000 to $200,000, jury trials were eliminated for simplified-procedure actions (other than select intentional-tort claims), discovery limits and trial length (five days) were formalized, and cost and disbursement caps were introduced ($50,000 costs, $25,000 disbursements)^[11]. The government described the reform objective as “making civil litigation easier [and] faster” and helping to “reduce cost and delay” in the Superior Court[12].

In short, the evolution of Rule 76 reflects a deliberate, policy-driven shift, from a one-size ordinary procedure burdening mid-value claims, to a tiered, more proportionate model distinguishing higher- and lower-value litigation. The design of simplified procedure did not emerge as an experiment alone, but through consultation, monitoring, feedback and reform. It is the product of attempts to widen access to justice, contain costs and streamline the Court’s inventory of cases.

The Framework of Simplified Procedure Today

When It Applies

Under Rule 76.02(1)^[13], an action may proceed under the simplified procedure if the “amount of money claimed” and/or the “fair market value of any real or personal property claimed” is $200,000 or less, measured as of the date the action is commenced. Interest and costs are excluded from that calculation (unless the pleadings treat them separately). Parties may also opt-in to simplified procedure even if the value is lower, but they cannot proceed in that track if the action is governed by a special rule (for example, a class proceeding, or a matter under the Construction Act that has a trust component)^[14].

Procedural Consequences

Once an action is in the simplified track, several constraints apply^[15]. Discovery is limited in time (typically three hours of oral examination for discovery per side under the 2020 amendments). Affidavit evidence (rather than extensive viva voce) is standard. Time for trial is capped at five days. Cost recovery is capped (costs up to $50,000, disbursements up to $25,000 for actions commenced after Jan 1, 2020). Additionally, and importantly, for simplified-procedure actions commenced after January 1, 2020, jury trials are not available (save narrow exceptions). Thus proceeding under Rule 76 means accepting a judge-alone trial^[16]

I commend to you here a Substack I wrote recently on the choice of jury or judge-alone trials in PI cases, “Courtroom Gamble: Is a Jury Worth the Risk in Personal Injury Claims?”.^[17]

The Monetary Calculation and When the Cap Binds

A core strategic question is this: how do you calculate “amount claimed” and the property value at commencement?

Courts have emphasized that the ceiling must be assessed at the commencement date, not later. A claim drafted above $200,000 cannot simply be whittled down afterward so as to fit into simplified procedure unless the pleadings, parties and stage of the action support the transition. The substantive value of the claim must genuinely be within the boundary when commenced.

For example, in Ingratta v. McDonald, 2024 ONSC 371^[18], the Court examined the timing and value assessments relevant to Rule 76 and stressed that a late shift into simplified procedure invites scrutiny of prejudice, scheduling and fairness. The action had been commenced under ordinary procedure, and as trial approached the plaintiff sought to reclassify the case within Rule 76. The Court confirmed that the simplified-procedure ceiling is assessed as of the date of commencement, and that parties cannot use later developments in the litigation to retro-fit an action into Rule 76 once the litigation’s trajectory and scheduling expectations are set. In Ingratta, the Court declined the late transition, underscoring that monetary jurisdiction under Rule 76 turns on the pleadings and valuation at commencement.

Because interest, costs and post-commencement events may not count for the ceiling, counsel must craft the statement of claim carefully, controlling for extraneous items, and be clear that any interest sought is separate and does not form part of the monetary cap.

Jury Rights and the Trade-off

I wrote a Substack last summer on the right to a civil jury, “The Jury’s Still In: But for How Long in Ontario?”.^[19]

As I discussed in that blog, a major trade-off of proceeding under simplified procedure is the waiver of a jury trial. For claims commenced post-Jan 1, 2020 in the simplified track, the rule provides that there is no jury. That means parties who value a jury (and its perceived advantages) must think twice about whether to remain in the ordinary track. The right to civil jury trial in Ontario is statutory, not constitutional as in criminal matters, under s. 108 of the Courts of Justice Act and may be limited by procedure.

In Thomas v. Aviva, 2022 ONSC 1728^[20], the Court held that a legacy jury notice (served before the January 1, 2020 amendments) could not be stripped merely because the parties later sought to migrate the action into the simplified-procedure track. The plaintiff had commenced the action well before the Rule 76 reforms came into force, and the defence had exercised its statutory right to a civil jury under the pre-2020 regime. When the plaintiff later attempted to reposition the action within Rule 76, where jury trials are no longer permitted, the Court found that such a shift would improperly deprive the defendant of a right it had already acquired and relied upon. Justice Ramsay emphasized that the 2020 reforms were expressly prospective and did not retroactively extinguish jury notices delivered in accordance with the former rules. The case underscores that simplified-procedure transitions must respect statutory and temporal protections. Parties cannot retro-fit a legacy claim into Rule 76 simply because the quantum or litigation strategy has evolved, and courts will guard against procedural moves that erode vested rights.

In Lightfoot v. Hodgins, 2021 ONSC 1950^[21], the Court struck a jury notice where it was fair and appropriate to proceed judge-alone under the simplified procedure, even though the defendant had delivered its jury notice much earlier in the litigation. The underlying action arose from a 2015 motor-vehicle accident in which the plaintiff initially advanced damages well in excess of the Rule 76 ceiling, approximately $750,000, placing the case firmly in the ordinary-procedure stream. As the evidence matured, however, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim to limit damages to $200,000 and to bring the matter within the simplified-procedure regime. The parties agreed the case was suitable for Rule 76, and the Court noted that a simplified five-day, affidavit-heavy trial was far more proportionate than the anticipated three-week jury trial required under ordinary procedure. Justice Muszynski held that in these circumstances, where the plaintiff genuinely reduced the claim, the action fit within Rule 76, and proportionality strongly favoured the streamlined process, it was just to strike the jury notice. The decision reflects the principle that procedural rights must yield where insisting on a jury would undermine the fairness, timeliness, and proportionality objectives that Rule 76 is designed to achieve.

The upshot? Simplified procedure forces a deliberate choice for a faster, leaner trial process, but no jury.

Recent Case Law: Two Developments

Sharma v. Bublyk 2025 ONSC 6245

While a full CanLII version is not yet available, Sharma v. Bublyk, 2025 ONSC 6245^[22] provides important clarification on how the $200,000 damages cap operates in multi-party actions under Rule 76. The case arose from a motor-vehicle collision in Barrie involving two plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Sharma, who sued both the at-fault driver and the vehicle owner. Liability was admitted, leaving the Court to determine how the simplified-procedure monetary ceiling applies when there are multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants. The Court held that the $200,000 limit applies per plaintiff, per defendant, meaning each plaintiff may claim up to $200,000 against each defendant individually. With two plaintiffs and two defendants, the theoretical maximum recovery under Rule 76 was therefore $800,000. The Court adopted this approach by relying on the wording of Rule 76.02 and by reaffirming earlier authority such as Guzha v. Eclipse Colour & Imaging Corp., 2005 CanLII 2400 (ON SC)^[23], which endorsed a liberal and access-to-justice-oriented interpretation of the simplified-procedure regime. The decision also confirmed that although the vehicle owner is vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence, vicarious liability does not expand the cap — the owner’s maximum remains the same as the driver’s: $200,000 per plaintiff.

In short, Sharma illustrates that in multi-defendant cases, Rule 76’s ceiling multiplies according to the number of plaintiffs and defendants, allowing plaintiffs to maximize recovery while still remaining within the simplified-procedure framework.

Belfiori v. Doe, 2025 ONSC 6166

In the very recent decision of Belfiori v. Doe, 2025 ONSC 6166^[24], the Ontario Superior Court addressed a plaintiff’s motion to amend a $1,000,000 motor-vehicle claim down to the $200,000 statutory minimum and to continue the action under Rule 76, with the consequential striking of the defendant’s jury notice. The plaintiff, injured when he swerved his motorcycle to avoid an unidentified vehicle, had originally pleaded higher damages on the assumption he might access OPCF-44R family-protection coverage up to $1,000,000. After diligent but unsuccessful efforts to obtain corroborating evidence of the unidentified automobile (including a private investigator and a Wagg motion for the police file), it became clear only the $200,000 unidentified-auto limit was available. The plaintiff moved to amend accordingly. Co-operators opposed, arguing the motion was premature, that there was no concrete plan yet to fit the trial into five days, and that it would suffer non-compensable prejudice by losing its jury. Muszynski J. held that once the claim is genuinely limited to $200,000, Rule 76 simplified procedure is mandatory, that there is no “too-complex/too-long” exception to the five-day trial cap, and that parties litigating sub-$200,000 disputes have an obligation to ensure the case can be tried proportionately within that framework. The Court found no non-compensable prejudice, granted leave to amend, ordered that the action continue under Rule 76, and struck the jury notice.

In practical terms, Belfiori v. Doe confirms that once a claim is properly limited to $200,000 or less, Rule 76 is mandatory and the loss of a jury does not amount to non-compensable prejudice. Parties must shape the case to fit the five-day simplified-procedure model, with the cost consequences in Rule 76.13 applying when an action is amended down from ordinary procedure.

Strategic Commentary for Practitioners

Early Decision-Making is Critical

Given that the ceiling is measured at commencement, counsel should from the outset evaluate whether the value of the claim (and the value of property claims, if any) can realistically fall within $200,000 (excluding interest and costs). That requires assessing potential heads of damage, future contingent claims, and whether the pleadings should limit relief to stay inside the simplified track.

Check Complexity and Readiness

Even if a claim is inside the monetary ceiling, you must ask whether the simplified procedure process will adequately accommodate the scope of the case. As Belfiori v. Doe confirms, once a claim is properly limited to $200,000 or less, the Rules do not permit a “too complex for Rule 76” argument. Parties are expected to shape the case to fit within the five-day model. Where needed, case management may assist, but complexity alone does not justify remaining in ordinary procedure. If you expect multiple experts, voluminous discovery, or viva voce trial evidence, the ordinary track may remain preferable.

Work with the Trade-offs

The simplified track offers distinct advantages including limited discovery, short timeline, cost caps, but it comes at a price. There’s no jury, truncated trial, limits on experts and costs recovery. Clients must understand that choosing the simplified track signals acceptance of these conditions in exchange for efficiency.

Monitor the Reform Environment

While this blog does not canvass raising the ceiling, it is worth keeping tabs on the broader reform agenda under the Civil Rules Review Working Group^[25]. Proposed reforms include an “evidence‐first model”, earlier disclosures, case management intensification and elimination of oral discovery^[26]. These reforms will affect simplified procedure strategy, because as the ordinary track becomes leaner, the relative value proposition of the simplified track may shift.

Practical Checklist for a Rule 76-file

From drafting the statement of claim onward, assess:

(1) total claimed relief and whether it is within $200,000;

(2) whether the client is willing to proceed judge-alone;

(3) whether the factual and expert scope can be limited to a five-day trial;

(4) whether cost/disbursement caps are acceptable; and

(5) whether the case is ready to move rapidly.

If the answers are favourable, simplified procedure can yield a streamlined, cost-efficient path. If not, the ordinary track remains the safe choice.

Conclusion

Rule 76 remains one of the most under-used yet most effective tools for managing modest-value civil claims in Ontario. Beyond its access-to-justice purpose, the simplified procedure now plays a critical structural role in alleviating the Superior Court’s backlog. Jury trials for sub-$200,000 cases, particularly chronic-pain and other lower-quantum tort actions, consume far more Court time than judge-alone trials, often anecdotally taking twice as long and proving substantially harder to schedule. They also tend to be more difficult to settle, given the inherent unpredictability of jury outcomes. Eliminating juries in this class of cases is not merely a procedural detail. It is a major efficiency gain for the civil justice system.

For practitioners, the incentives are unmistakable. Rule 76 offers faster trial dates, shorter trials, reduced costs exposure, more focused evidentiary presentation, and a streamlined framework that is far easier for clients to navigate. Yet many lawyers still overlook the rule or fail to consider its strategic advantages, even where a claim fits comfortably within its boundaries. The recent decisions of Belfiori v. Doe and Sharma v. Bublyk demonstrate that when used thoughtfully, simplified procedure delivers proportionate, predictable, and timely adjudication without sacrificing fairness.

In a civil justice system under intense scheduling pressure, the simplified procedure is no longer a niche option. It is a core mechanism for restoring trial efficiency and improving access to justice. Counsel should assess, early and deliberately, whether a claim belongs in Rule 76, not only for the client’s benefit, but for the collective health and functionality of the courts themselves.