Effecting a Culture Shift -- An Empirical Review of Ontario's Summary Judgment Reforms

Abstract

Lawyers and policymakers in Canada frequently discuss the need for access to justice reform, but concrete efforts to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of civil justice are few and far between. Unfortunately, even when reforms are implemented, measures are rarely put in place to empirically assess whether the reforms were effective. Ontario’s Civil Justice Reform Project inspired a package of amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure in 2010 but, aside from anecdotal reports, little is known about whether they achieved their desired effects. This paper presents an empirical analysis of all reported summary judgment decisions in Ontario between 2004 and 2015, in order to explore whether amendments to the summary judgment rules actually improved the efficiency and affordability of the civil justice system as was intended. By reviewing trends in the number and outcomes of summary judgment motions throughout the study period, we can conclude that the amendments to Ontario’s summary judgment rules have made strides towards their intended goal. Since the reforms, we observe an increase in the number of summary judgment motions determined, an increase in the number of summary judgment motions granted, and, broadly, an increase in the proportion of successful summary judgment motions. The data analyzed in this study suggest that the “culture shift” promoted by the Supreme Court of Canada following the implementation of the new rule is in fact underway.