The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure may be dramatically changed. In January 2024, the Civil Rules Review (the “CRR”) was launched. The mandate of the CRR is extensive: to “conduct a comprehensive and complete review of the Rules and identify, through consultation, areas where targeted changes to the Rules would increase efficiency and access to justice for Ontarians, reduce complexity and costs, maximize the effective use of court resources, reduce delay, and leverage technical solutions.”  The CRR’s process is divided into three phases.  The Working Group of the CRR released its Phase 2 Consultation Paper on April 1, 2025.

Included in the proposed changes are:

1. Pre-Litigation Protocols: certain types of disputes (personal injury, debt collection, will challenges) would require parties to communicate with one another, discuss the availability of early mediation and exchange specifically identified documents before the litigation is commenced.
2. One Commencement Process: all civil proceedings would begin with the same “point of entry” and outline of the claim, regardless of whether it is an action or application.
3. Elimination of Oral Examinations for Discovery: instead of oral discoveries the parties would provide sworn/affirmed written witness statements. At trial, the oral evidence-in-chief of the parties will be limited to the “four corners” of the sworn witness statement. Non-party witness statements will be read into the record.
4. Limited Documentary Disclosure: a shift to a modified reliance-based standard requiring parties to disclose any documents they intend to rely upon and any known adverse documents (rather than disclosing all documents that are relevant).
5. Mandatory Case Conferences: mandatory attendance at a case conference after the exchange of evidence aimed at the resolution of procedural disputes.
6. Limitations on Expert Evidence and Early Disclosure: expert evidence to be restricted to one expert per issue per party, unless leave is granted. Expert evidence disclosed early in the litigation process, when witness statements are delivered.

Regarding the proposed PLP in will challenges, there are often standard documents that are relevant to the issues in the litigation (such as the last will and testament).  These documents are typically produced on consent by court order shortly after the claim is begun. This is precisely what the Working Group notes in explaining why will challenges were selected, because “they generally begin with an Order Giving Directions that compels the parties to exchange certain information. We believe it makes sense for that information to be exchanged as early in the process as possible, before expensive and divisive litigation takes place (generally between family members).” (p. 20)

Recognizing that the PLP could delay the commencement of a claim with a pending limitation period, the Working Group notes that a claim may need to be commenced to preserve the limitation period. The parties may then be required to comply with the PLP after the issuance of the claim, or other commencement of the proceeding (such as filing a Notice of Objection to an Application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee). Concerns about Ontario’s two year limitation period is acknowledged by the Working Group. As a result, they propose to recommend to the Attorney General that the basic limitation period for civil actions in Ontario be increased from two to three years.

While many changes may be coming, the Working Group of the CRR invites comments and suggestions on the proposed reforms to be sent by June 16, 2025.  Details can be found at page 7 of the Phase 2 Consultation Paper.