At Bogoroch & Associates LLP, we are committed to keeping the public and fellow lawyers informed of significant changes to the law — and few changes are more significant than the upcoming overhaul of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure. For persons wondering how this affects them: when someone is injured due to negligence — whether in a motor vehicle collision, a slip and fall, or as a result of medical malpractice — their lawsuit is started in civil court, and that process is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The upcoming reforms, which are likely to follow closely the Civil Rules Review Working Group’s Final Policy Report, will significantly change how injured persons’ cases are advanced and defended in Ontario.
Ontario is on the verge of the biggest civil litigation reform in decades. The Civil Rules Review Working Group’s Final Policy Report proposes a wholesale redesign of how civil lawsuits are started, how evidence is exchanged, and how cases move toward resolution. The changes are still proposed — not yet in force — but the direction is clear: Ontario is moving toward a more front-loaded litigation system, with earlier disclosure and fewer traditional procedural steps.
For injured people, the key question is simple:
Will it be easier or harder to obtain fair compensation under the new rules?
There is no one-size-fits-all answer - The impact will vary from case to case. Some reforms may streamline certain steps. But other proposed changes raise real concerns — particularly for people without legal representation, and for injured plaintiffs who rely on the discovery process to uncover what happened and prove their claim.
Below are the most important proposed changes and why they matter.
1) A New Pre-Litigation Protocol: Disclosure Before You Sue
One of the most significant proposed changes is the introduction of pre-litigation protocols (“PLPs”). In many cases, parties will be required to take formal steps before a lawsuit is even started, including exchanging a limited subset of the most relevant documents and considering early resolution.
In personal injury litigation, “relevant documents” typically include the records that prove both the injury and its consequences, such as:
- Medical records and reports (hospital records, clinical notes and records, imaging results, treatment/rehabilitation records, prognosis opinions)
- Employment and income documents (pay stubs, T4s, tax returns, disability benefit paperwork, confirmation of missed work)
- Incident documentation (police reports where applicable, photos, witness information, accident/incident reports)
In other words, injured people may be expected to provide meaningful documentation at the very outset — potentially while they are still in active treatment and before the long-term impact of the injury is fully known.
This has two practical implications. First, it increases the importance of early legal advice so that disclosures are complete, accurate, and fair. Second, it creates new procedural demands that may be difficult for people without counsel to navigate.
It is also important for injured people to understand that these proposed protocols add new steps and new timing pressures at the beginning of a claim. The earlier that key information must be gathered and exchanged, the more important it becomes to ensure the process is handled carefully.
2) A New Three-Track System (Including a $500,000 Threshold)
The proposal creates three procedural “tracks”:
- Application Track
- Summary Track
- Trial Track
Many injury claims will presumptively proceed under the Summary Track where the claim is under $500,000. While courts may have discretion to move cases between tracks, the track system is intended to shape procedure from the beginning.
For injured people, the key point is this: the track a case is assigned to will affect what steps are available, how evidence is exchanged, and how the case ultimately gets heard.
3) The Biggest Concern: Curtailing Examinations for Discovery
The most consequential proposed change for injury victims is the shift away from the traditional discovery model — particularly for claims under $500,000.
Examinations for discovery have historically been a central part of civil justice in Ontario. They allow lawyers to ask questions under oath, test credibility, obtain admissions, and uncover information that is not apparent from the documents. In many cases, discoveries are also the turning point where parties gain a realistic understanding of what a judge or jury is likely to believe.
The proposed model places greater emphasis on:
- sworn witness statements, and
- reliance documents (documents a party intends to rely on).
While that may sound efficient, it can create real fairness concerns. Discovery is often how injured people learn what the defendant knew, what policies existed, what was done internally after an incident, and what the defendant’s witnesses will actually say when tested.
Without meaningful discovery, there is a risk that injured plaintiffs will be forced to prove their case with fewer tools to uncover the truth — and that defendants may face less pressure to provide direct answers.
Medical malpractice cases: why discovery matters even more
This issue is particularly serious in medical negligence litigation. In medical malpractice cases, examinations for discovery are often essential because doctors and nurses frequently provide key evidence about what they did or did not do at critical moments that is not readily apparent from their notes. That testimony can be central to the standard of care analysis. A system that limits discovery risks shifting the case toward paper records alone — even where charting is incomplete or ambiguous.
4) Other Notable Changes (Experts, Mediation, Pre-Trials)
The Final Policy Report also proposes significant reforms to mandatory mediation, expert evidence, and pre-trial/trial management. Some of these changes may improve efficiency. Others may increase up-front costs and complexity, particularly in cases where expert evidence is necessary to prove the claim.
Conclusion
If implemented as proposed, these reforms will reshape Ontario civil litigation into a more front-loaded process, with earlier disclosure and reduced reliance on traditional discovery tools. For injured people, that means the early stages of a claim may carry more procedural weight than ever — and the way cases are prepared and proven may look very different than it does today.
The Final Policy Report is 282 pages long, and the summary above highlights only some of the most significant proposed changes affecting personal injury and medical malpractice litigation. As the rules are finalized and implemented, additional details may become important in practice — and we will remain committed to keeping injured persons and their loved ones informed as these reforms develop.
Final Policy Report link: Civil Rules Review — Final Policy Report (October 31, 2025)