The Ontario court system isn’t just slow. It’s teetering on collapse in many jurisdictions. Civil trials are now being booked into late 2026 and beyond. No credible timeline for system-wide recovery exists. While backlogs balloon and frustration builds, mediation remains an underused solution. But that’s about to change. A convergence of judicial reform, regional necessity, and institutional exhaustion is about to place mediation, not litigation, at the centre of Ontario’s civil justice process.

As of mid-2025, we have not yet seen a uniform surge in mediation activity across the province. Outside of Toronto, Ottawa, and Windsor, where Rule 24.1 has long mandated mediation, the demand for services like mine has remained steady, but not overwhelming^[1]. This is not a plateau. It’s a lull before the storm. In my estimation, the coming 24 to 36 months will usher in a provincewide expansion of mandatory mediation, a cultural pivot toward earlier resolution, and a renewed demand for mediators who are not only experienced but also evaluative and efficient.

Mandatory Mediation Provincewide: Not If, But When

With Phase 2 of Ontario’s Civil Rules Review^[2]behind us, the writing is on the wall. Ontario is preparing for a broader, more consistent application of Rule 24.1. Mandatory mediation provincewide is no longer a theoretical proposition. It is a practical inevitability. I expect it to be fully implemented by 2026, with early pilots potentially rolled out in 2025. But this expansion will not arrive in one sweeping motion. Instead, it will almost certainly be phased in region by region, starting with high-volume litigation centres such as Hamilton, London, Kitchener, Brampton, and Oshawa.

This phased approach makes logistical and professional sense. Local bar associations need time to build up qualified mediator rosters. Trial coordinators will need to adapt scheduling practices. Lawyers in regions unfamiliar with the Rule 24.1 framework will require orientation. And, critically, the courts must be confident that there is a pool of trained, experienced, and available mediators capable of handling the volume. Without that infrastructure, mandatory mediation will falter on execution, even if it succeeds on paper.

What this means for mediators is clear: now is the time to prepare. If you are not on the radar of the litigation bar in your region, if you are not investing in your reputation for results, and if you are not learning how to deliver outcomes—not just facilitation—you risk being left behind.

Why Evaluative Mediation Will Matter More Than Ever

This leads to a second, equally critical trend: the resurgence of evaluative mediation. As more files are pushed into mandatory mediation streams, and as clients lose patience with litigation delays, the market is shifting. Counsel no longer want, or can afford, the luxury of abstract facilitation. They want results. They want risk assessment. They want reality checks.

The successful mediator of 2026 will not be the one with the warmest demeanor or the most charming breakout room banter, as important as those qualities may be in a good mediator’s toolbox. It will be the mediator who can grasp the key factual and legal issues quickly, assess their significance, and speak plainly and credibly to both sides, meaning lawyers and their clients,  about what’s likely to happen if the case proceeds to trial.

When court dockets are overloaded and litigation budgets are under pressure, the role of the mediator must go beyond that of a neutral facilitator. What counsel and clients increasingly want is a mediator who can identify the legal and evidentiary weaknesses on both sides, weigh in candidly on the risks of proceeding to trial, speak plainly about where the case realistically falls within the broader spectrum of outcomes, and provide a grounded, real-world perspective shaped by years of litigation and mediation experience.

Facilitative techniques will continue to have value, particularly in multiparty or emotionally sensitive disputes. But in most personal injury, insurance, and estate cases, clients aren’t looking for catharsis. They’re looking for resolution. Evaluative mediators who understand the legal terrain, and have the credibility to guide parties toward pragmatic outcomes, will be in growing demand.

The Coming Rise of Pre-Claim Mediation

Another underappreciated trend is the impending rise of pre-claim mediation. Once considered premature or even risky, early mediation is likely to become mainstream, particularly once the 90-day letter of claim protocol takes root.

Under the proposed reforms, plaintiffs will be required to send a formal letter of claim at least 90 days before issuing their statement of claim. This notice requirement is designed to foster earlier engagement between parties. But its true power lies in creating space for meaningful pre-litigation dialogue, and with it, the potential for resolution without litigation.

Pre-claim mediation aligns with this new procedural culture. It encourages parties to exchange key records, identify core disputes, and explore resolution before litigation hardens adversarial positions. This model is particularly well suited for soft-tissue claims, mid-value tort cases, and disputes where legal fees risk eclipsing damages. For insurers, it offers early closure. For plaintiffs, it avoids delay and cost. For lawyers, it reduces the burden of pushing marginal cases through clogged discovery channels.

If Ontario adopts these protocols, mediators will need to become comfortable engaging earlier in the life cycle of a dispute. That means mastering case analysis even when discovery is incomplete and helping parties bridge valuation gaps with less than perfect information.

The Economics of Delay: Everyone Loses

Litigation delay isn’t just frustrating. It’s expensive. For plaintiffs, it means delayed compensation, growing debt, and often, increased medical and rehabilitation expenses without timely reimbursement. For defence counsel and insurers, it means prolonged exposure, larger reserves, and increasing pressure to settle later for more.

Delays compound uncertainty. Memories fade, witnesses become unavailable, and expert costs climb. The closer a file gets to trial in an overburdened system, the more risk-averse both sides become. By that point, settlement may still happen, but only after far more resources have been expended than were necessary.

Mediation short-circuits that spiral. It creates a cost-efficient checkpoint where parties can recalibrate. But for it to work, mediators must understand the economics in play. They must be able to speak fluently about cost-benefit analysis, trial exposure, interest accrual, and how litigation delay affects the file’s valuation on both sides. This requires more than neutrality, it requires fluency in the real-world consequences of delay.

The Training Gap: Not All Mediators Are Created Equal

With mandatory mediation likely to expand, demand for mediators will grow. But we cannot ignore the looming training gap.

There is a fundamental difference between someone trained to facilitate dialogue and someone trained to evaluate legal risk. The skills are not mutually exclusive, but they are not interchangeable either. Many mediators entering the profession have strong interpersonal skills but little litigation experience. Others bring deep litigation backgrounds but struggle with neutrality or communication.

As mediation becomes central to Ontario’s civil justice system, quality control will become a serious concern. The courts and the profession must ensure that mediators tasked with resolving high-stakes matters have the judgment, legal literacy, and credibility to do so effectively. It may be time to revisit mediator accreditation standards, encourage mentorship models, and recognize the value of subject-matter specialization within the ADR field.

Clients deserve more than availability. They deserve competence. As mediation moves from the margins to the mainstream, we must take that standard seriously.

Why Local Counsel Should Prepare Now

Many lawyers outside the mandatory mediation zones are accustomed to resolving files without structured ADR. That era is ending. Whether you practise in Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Peterborough, or Kingston, your litigation workflow is going to change.

Now is the time to:

• Identify local mediators with subject-matter expertise;
• Begin training support staff on mediation scheduling, document preparation, and client prep;
• Develop internal protocols for early file assessment and triage;
• Educate clients on the value—and function—of mediation as a formal step in the litigation process.

Waiting for Rule 24.1 to land on your doorstep is a mistake. When it does arrive, your firm’s ability to navigate mediation quickly and competently will become a competitive advantage, or a liability.

Mediation as Risk Management in a Volatile System

Litigation used to be about control, about building your case step-by-step, timing your moves, and positioning yourself strategically for trial or settlement. But in a system this congested, that kind of control is increasingly illusory.

Trial dates are unreliable. Judicial availability is unpredictable. Pre-trial judges vary widely in tone and preparation. Even obtaining motion dates has become a logistical battle.

In this context, mediation becomes risk management. It is a structured moment of control in an otherwise unpredictable process. It allows parties to set the pace, test positions, assess exposure, and resolve risk, not hypothetically, but practically.

Counsel who understand this are using mediation more aggressively. They’re not waiting for court scheduling to dictate momentum. They’re creating their own.

What Ontario Can Learn from U.S. Mediation Culture

Ontario is not alone in its shift toward front-loaded dispute resolution. American jurisdictions, particularly California and New York, have long embraced early mediation as a practical response to court congestion. There, mediation is not seen as a warm-up for trial It is seen as the trial substitute.

Mature mediation cultures in the United States are characterized by several defining features. Pre-discovery mediation is commonly used, especially in personal injury, employment, and commercial disputes, where early resolution can significantly reduce litigation costs^[3]. There is a strong emphasis on mediator specialization, with parties routinely selecting mediators based not merely on availability, but on their subject-matter expertise and professional background. Evaluative mediation is widely supported, with many mediators being former judges or seasoned litigators who are expected to offer pointed and informed assessments of legal risk. In addition, mediation is often fully integrated into the insurance claims process, functioning as a standard checkpoint before decisions are made about litigation or settlement.

Ontario is already moving in this direction, but we can accelerate the transition by learning from these models. We should be encouraging insurers to budget for early mediation. We should be preparing lawyers to mediate before discoveries. And we should be supporting mediators who bring substantive expertise to the table.

Final Thought: Prepare for the Surge Before It Hits

For now, mediation may still feel like a tool used selectively, an option rather than a necessity. But that’s changing, fast. Between the rules reform process, the court backlog, and the cultural pivot toward earlier resolution, we are heading toward a future in which mediation is no longer a side door. It’s the main hallway.

Lawyers who recognize this will invest now in mediation literacy, client education, and early settlement strategy. Mediators who recognize this will refine their evaluative skills, build visibility within their regions, and position themselves as indispensable to the system Ontario is about to become.

This is not a wait-and-see moment. This is a prepare-and-lead moment.

Because once the surge hits, those who haven’t adapted won’t be catching up. They’ll be left behind.