Memorandum

To: Civil Bar Associations and Legal Organizations
From: Regional Senior Justice S. E. Firestone
Subject: Civil List Matters
Date: April 7, 2025

This memorandum is to advise counsel that in an effort to reduce delay and increase efficiency, effective May 1, 2025, the following changes will apply to certain practices on the Civil List in Toronto.

Hearing dates for Long Motions/Applications and Summary Judgment Motions before a Judge – Civil Practice Court (CPC)

Effective May 1, 2025, hearing dates will not be scheduled until all preliminary steps including cross-examinations and delivery of factums have been completed.

This change will assist in the elimination of “placeholder dates” being scheduled and will allow for the assignment of earlier dates. It will also help to prevent last-minute adjournments and cancellations and ensure that motions and applications that are ready to proceed can be heard on a timely basis.

CPC Court will continue to be used to curtail the motions culture in Toronto by vetting unnecessary motions; setting timetables; identifying cases which require a degree of case management and directing long motions to the trial list where appropriate.

The first attendance at CPC Court will determine whether a matter should be scheduled; whether it should proceed by way of motion or case conference and whether it should proceed in writing. Timetables will continue to be set. Following the completion of all preliminary steps the parties will then attend CPC Court to obtain a hearing date.

Factum Length

Effective May 1, 2025, factums for Civil List motions and applications will be limited to 20 pages unless leave for a longer factum is obtained at Civil Practice Court.

Request for Urgent Motions before a Judge or Associate Judge

Effective May 1, 2025, requests for urgent motions sent to CivilUrgentMatters-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca must be accompanied with the attached Civil Urgent Motions form which will also be available on the Superior Court of Justice Website.

Original PDF Memorandum

Counsel and parties are reminded that uploading material to Case Center is mandatory for most civil and family matters in the Superior Court of Justice.

Effective May 12, 2025 in the Central South Region, and June 9, 2025 in the Central East region, Case Center will be mandatory for Family Responsibility Office matters at the Superior Court of Justice. Also, effective as of those dates, court staff will upload documents to Case Center on behalf of self-represented litigants in family matters and will offer Case Center support to self-represented litigants in civil matters.

For more information, please see the full Notice for the Central South region, found here and for the Central East region, found here.

We are very proud of the work of the judicial officials who preside in the Ontario Courts. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy. An independent judiciary protects the public, not just judicial officials. It means a society governed by the rule of law. In Canada, this means, as is set out in section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the country. Our constitutional democracy is comprised of three branches of government — the executive, the legislative and the judicial — and all three branches of government must exercise their power and authority in accordance with the Constitution. While it is the legislature that enacts legislation, it is the role of a judicial official to interpret and apply the law. To fulfill this role, the judiciary must be distinct from, and operate independently of, all other justice system participants, including the other two branches of government.

The principle of judicial independence is generally recognized as having two dimensions. The first applies to individual judicial officials and embodies the fundamental principle that a judicial official must be, and must be seen to be, free to decide each case on its own merits, without interference or influence of any kind from any source, including politicians. The second applies to the Court as an institution. It requires the Court, as a whole to be, and appear to be independent of the legislative and executive branches of government. Together, both dimensions safeguard the judicial decision-making process and, in turn, the public that the Court serves.

Every Canadian has the constitutional right to have their legal issues decided by a fair and impartial judiciary. Our justice system is founded on public confidence that decisions, whether popular or not, are fully heard and fairly made. It is crucial that the judiciary is both actually independent and appears to be independent so the public can be confident that judicial decisions are made without bias.

*Original signed by the three Chiefs.  

Case Name: Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al., 2025 ONSC 2424

Court File No: CV-24-00732896

Courthouse: Toronto

Proceeding Type: Civil Court

Note: Please be advised that Civil Court decision in Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al., 2025 ONSC 2424 has been released.

The decision document can be found at the following link:

https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/files/decisions/Cycle-Toronto-et-al-v-AGO-Reasons-on-Injunction-PBS1-April-22-2025.pdf

Civil Rules Review Phase 2 Report

Civil Rules Review Phase 2 Consultation Report

Counsel and parties are reminded that uploading material to Case Center is mandatory for most civil and family matters in the Superior Court of Justice.

Effective March 17, 2025 in the Northwest and Northeast region, Case Center will be mandatory for Family Responsibility Office matters at the Superior Court of Justice. Also, effective March 17, 2025, court staff will upload documents to Case Center on behalf of self-represented litigants in family matters and will offer Case Center support to self-represented litigants in civil matters.

For more information, please see the full Notice for the Northeast and Northwest regions. The Northeast Notice can be found here, and the Northwest Notice can be found here.

Judicial Appointments Announced

Judicial Appointments Announced

Amendments to O. Reg. 114/99: Family Law Rules came into force on January 22, 2025 : Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution; Costs; Associate Judges.

Rule 43: Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution in the Superior Court of Justice

Rule 43 allows parties to choose a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) as a summary process to resolve their family dispute, instead of a trial.  Through Binding JDR, parties ask the same judge to try to assist them to settle their issues on consent and to make final orders about unresolved issues in a single hearing.

Rule 43 applies in Superior Court of Justice locations, (including in the unified Family Court) that have been approved by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice. Binding JDR is available in the Central East, Central South, Northeast, Northwest and Toronto regions and Middlesex County (London). As of February 6, 2025, it is also available through the entire East Region. For a list of courthouse locations by region, please see Contacting the Court..

The Practice Advisory Concerning the Superior Court of Justice’s Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) Pilot Project (introduced on May 14, 2021, amended August 1, 2023) is no longer in effect and has been replaced by Rule 43.

For information about Binding JDR, how to request and schedule a hearing, how to file evidence for the hearing, and what to expect at a Binding JDR hearing, see Rule 43 of the Family Law Rules. The forms needed to request and participate in a Binding JDR Hearing are available on the Ontario Court Forms website:

Amendments to Rules 18 and 24 – Costs

The rules relating to the award of costs in family law cases have been amended to confirm the summary nature of the process, to clarify the broad discretion of judges to determine costs, to require parties to confer in advance, and to set standards for page and time limits.

Update to Rule 42 – Associate Judges at the Superior Court of Justice

Rule 42 permits Associate Judges to hear motions, make certain types of orders, and to conduct conferences in family cases at the Superior Court of Justice, including the Family Court Branch.

Rule 42 has been amended to remove the geographical restriction which limited the application of the rule to the Family Court in Ottawa only. With this change, Associate Judges may be assigned to exercise their jurisdiction in family cases anywhere they are appointed throughout the province.

Ontario Judicial Appointments Announced