Preliminary steps in litigation
Early assessment, objectives, limitation/notice checks; explore negotiation, mediation, or arbitration. Jump to section
The assertion, defence, and resolution of legal rights and obligations through court proceedings or alternatives such as negotiation, mediation, or arbitration.
Grigoras Law represents clients across Ontario in civil and commercial disputes. We represent both plaintiffs and defendants, starting with a thorough case assessment and a practical plan. We pursue negotiation, mediation, or arbitration where appropriate, and advance or defend court proceedings, including urgent injunctions and focused motions, when necessary, aiming for an efficient resolution or judgment.
Early assessment, objectives, limitation/notice checks; explore negotiation, mediation, or arbitration. Jump to section
Drafting/issuing claims, proper service, forum strategy, multi-party coordination. Jump to section
Defences, counterclaims, cross/third-party claims; scope and risk managed with intent. Jump to section
Replies and amendments; keep issues sharp and the record clean. Jump to section
Targeted motions (strike, jurisdiction, security for costs) and ADR to streamline the path. Jump to section
Affidavits of documents, oral discovery, privilege strategy, focused fact development. Jump to section
Procedural and substantive relief, including summary judgment and interlocutory injunctions where justified. Jump to section
Witnesses, experts, pre-trial motions, exhibit plans; disciplined case theory and presentation prep. Jump to section
Openings, examinations, and closings before judge or jury; clear advocacy grounded in the record. Jump to section
Before commencing any legal action, it is crucial to evaluate the potential outcomes and the feasibility of litigation. This stage involves a thorough assessment of the facts, legal issues, and the client’s objectives. Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a case early on helps in formulating a robust legal strategy. Our Toronto civil litigation lawyers conduct a detailed analysis of the client’s situation, considering factors such as evidence, potential witnesses, and the likelihood of success.
Legal prerequisites, such as checking applicable limitation periods and ensuring compliance with statutory notice requirements, must be met before proceeding. We advise clients on all necessary pre-litigation steps, including gathering relevant documents and information and evaluating the prospects of alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation or arbitration. These steps are crucial in laying a strong foundation for the case and avoiding unnecessary delays.
Our civil litigation team works closely with clients to understand their specific goals, whether they seek compensation, an injunction, or another form of relief. We also explore cost-effective and timely alternatives to traditional litigation, such as negotiated settlements or arbitration. Our goal is to ensure clients are fully informed of their options and can make strategic decisions that align with their business or personal objectives.
The initial phase of any litigation process involves a detailed case assessment to understand the client’s position thoroughly. This includes reviewing all relevant documents, interviewing potential witnesses, and consulting with experts if necessary. Our Toronto civil litigation lawyers focus on identifying the legal issues and potential defences, considering the possible outcomes, and assessing the risks and benefits of proceeding with litigation.
During this phase, we work collaboratively with our clients to develop a tailored litigation strategy that aligns with their objectives. We consider factors such as the client’s budget, time constraints, and the potential impact of the litigation on their business or personal life. By providing clear and practical advice, we empower our clients to make informed decisions about how to proceed.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods, such as mediation, arbitration, and negotiation, offer flexible and cost-effective alternatives to traditional litigation. These processes can often lead to quicker resolutions and allow parties to maintain control over the outcome. Our Toronto civil litigation lawyers are skilled in facilitating ADR processes and helping clients achieve favourable settlements without the need for a lengthy court battle.
Mediation involves a neutral third party who assists the disputing parties in reaching a mutually acceptable resolution. This process encourages open communication and collaboration, allowing parties to explore creative solutions tailored to their unique needs. Arbitration, on the other hand, involves a binding decision made by an arbitrator after hearing evidence and arguments from both sides. This process can be more formal than mediation but still offers a streamlined alternative to court proceedings.
Starting a lawsuit in Ontario begins with a structured assessment. A viable cause of action must be identified, Ontario must be confirmed as the proper forum, and the appropriate court and procedure must be selected – typically an action commenced by a statement of claim, or in some cases an application for specific relief. Necessary parties must be identified, litigation capacity (including any need for a litigation guardian) must be verified, key documents and witness information should be assembled, and limitation periods, notice requirements, or leave prerequisites must be diarized. Where time allows, a demand letter is ordinarily sent and settlement options are explored.
If the case should proceed, clear, fact-focused pleadings that set out the material facts and the relief sought must be drafted. The claim is then issued in the proper court office and must be served within prescribed timelines, including any special rules for defendants outside Ontario. Precise service records should be maintained. After service, a notice of intent to defend may be delivered to extend time, followed by a statement of defence. Counterclaims, crossclaims, and third-party claims may be added where other parties are implicated. Early motions (to strike, to stay, or to challenge jurisdiction) may be brought to narrow or dispose of issues at the outset.
Once pleadings close, the matter proceeds to discovery. Affidavits of documents must be exchanged, productions must be made, and examinations for discovery are conducted to clarify facts and test positions. Interlocutory motions are often required to address refusals, production disputes, scheduling, or expert timelines. Mediation or a settlement conference is frequently encouraged to focus issues and promote resolution.
If settlement is not achieved, the action proceeds to trial for a final determination by judge (or jury where permitted). Post-judgment steps may include costs, enforcement, and appeals. Throughout, case management principles of efficiency and proportionality are applied, and abusive or repetitious proceedings may be controlled by the court in exceptional circumstances. In sum, starting a lawsuit involves evaluating and preserving the claim, commencing correctly, managing interlocutory steps with discipline, and advancing to trial if necessary.
Drafting the statement of claim begins with a clear theory of the case organized in a short chronology. Parties and their capacities must be identified, correct legal names and service addresses stated, and jurisdiction or venue pleaded where required. Material facts for each cause of action must be set out, not evidence or argument. In negligence, facts supporting duty, breach, causation, and loss must be pleaded. In contract, the existence of the agreement, its essential terms, the breach, and resulting damages must be pleaded. Where statutory remedies are sought, the statute and relevant provisions should be identified.
Particulars must be sufficient so the defendant understands the case to meet. Facts should explain what duty or term applied, how it was breached, how the breach caused loss, and what loss was suffered, with special damages itemized where available. If the case should proceed, clear fact-focused pleadings that set out the material facts and the relief sought must be drafted.
The prayer for relief should enumerate precise remedies, including general and special damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and any equitable relief such as declarations or injunctions. Punitive or aggravated damages must be supported by facts that could justify such awards. Scandalous, irrelevant, or conclusory allegations should be avoided, and the claim should remain concise, fair, and compliant with pleading rules while preserving room for refinement through discovery.
Service of the statement of claim must be completed within six months of issuance, with Sunday service prohibited without leave of the court. The proper method of service must be selected after identifying the defendant’s category, and alternatives to personal service may be used where permitted. Addresses for service should be verified and a process server retained in the relevant jurisdictions. If a notice of action was used, the statement of claim must be available to serve with it. Service outside Ontario must comply with the Rules and, where applicable, the Hague Service Convention. Proof of service should be documented carefully. If service is effective but technically improper, a motion for validation should be brought. If service cannot be accomplished despite reasonable efforts, a motion for substituted service or an order dispensing with service may be sought. A defendant who delivers a notice of intent to defend, a defence, or a notice of appearance is deemed served.
When multiple parties are involved, every person needed for a complete adjudication must be joined, and if joinder risks undue complexity or prejudice the court may order separate hearings or other managing directions. For group claims that are smaller in scale, representation tools are available: a small group may be authorized to proceed on behalf of an association or union where a full class action would be unduly expensive or inconvenient, and the Rule 10 representation order can bind persons who cannot readily be ascertained, found, or served, applying a balance of convenience test. For large-scale or diffuse harm, a class proceeding may be pursued if certification is obtained, with an identifiable class, common issues, and a preferable procedure, and any judgment or settlement binds class members who do not opt out. Class actions serve three aims that guide certification and case management: judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour modification.
Defending a lawsuit begins the moment service is confirmed. Deadlines must be diarized, key documents and communications preserved, and the proper procedural stance selected. A notice of intent to defend may be delivered to secure more time to plead. The statement of defence must disclose the material facts relied on to defeat the claim, not evidence or argument. Core pleading choices should be organized around the traditional defence types. A traverse denies the plaintiff’s material facts. A confession and avoidance accepts those facts but pleads new facts that negate liability, for example a release, limitation expiry, or other bar. An objection in point of law asserts that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action. Where a purely legal attack is suitable, an early motion to determine a question of law may be brought and, if successful, can dispose of all or part of the action before discovery.
Special defences must be expressly pleaded. Typical examples include limitation period, statutory notice defects, estoppel, waiver, laches, acquiescence, affirmation, qualified privilege, contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, mitigation, illegality, non est factum, fraud, payment or performance, reliance on statute, res judicata, Statute of Frauds, and surrender of a lease. Particulars should be provided to define the real issues and to avoid later requests for better particulars. If other parties bear responsibility, a counterclaim, crossclaim, or third party claim should be considered. Throughout, proportionality should guide the defence. Issues suitable for early determination should be isolated, pleadings should remain concise and fair, and the record should be built with an eye to discovery, motions, and, if necessary, trial.
Filing a statement of defence begins with confirming proper service and, if service is defective, raising an objection. If service is proper, delivery timelines must be diarized: 20 days if served in Ontario, 40 days if served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States, and 60 days if served outside those jurisdictions. Where more time is required, a Notice of Intent to Defend may be served to obtain an additional 10 days, and any indulgence from opposing counsel should be confirmed in writing. The defence must be prepared in Form 18A, admitting non-disputed facts, denying disputed facts or pleading no knowledge, setting out the defendant’s version of events, and pleading any affirmative matters that could take the plaintiff by surprise. Allegations not denied are deemed admitted. Any simplified-procedure considerations and planned counterclaims, crossclaims, or third party claims should be addressed. The defence must be served by a permitted method, then filed with proof of service, including via the online portal where appropriate, and delivered within the prescribed time or before the defendant is noted in default.
Counterclaims, crossclaims, and third party claims organize all related disputes in one proceeding so liability can be resolved efficiently and consistently. A counterclaim is the defendant’s claim back against the plaintiff, and, where necessary, against additional persons who must be joined to resolve the counterclaim. It must be included with the defence as a single pleading labeled “statement of defence and counterclaim,” issued and served within the ordinary defence timelines or with leave, and it may be tried with the main action unless doing so would unduly complicate or delay the trial, in which case the court may order it to proceed separately. A crossclaim is a claim by one defendant against a co-defendant, most often for contribution or indemnity. It should be delivered with the defence in the same document, and ordinary service is sufficient unless the co-defendant has not defended, in which case personal service or an accepted alternative is required. Where the crossclaim seeks only contribution or indemnity under the Negligence Act and relies on the same facts already pleaded, a formal defence to crossclaim need not be delivered, since the allegations are deemed denied and the co-defendant may rely on its main defence. A third party claim is a defendant’s claim against a non-party who may be liable over, who may be independently liable on a related transaction or occurrence, or who should be bound by the determination of an issue. It should be issued promptly after the defence, served personally on the third party with the prior pleadings, and, where appropriate, the third party may defend the main action. Any of these added claims may be severed to prevent prejudice or delay to the plaintiff, but the default is to try them with the main action to avoid multiple proceedings.
Exploring early settlement begins with a candid look at merits, collectability, cost, and timing. Formal tools exist in Ontario such as mediation and offers to settle, yet most negotiations occur informally. The common belief that most actions “settle” is overstated; many civil cases end in default judgment, summary judgment, or quiet abandonment where recovery prospects are poor or an insolvency intervenes. Early settlement strategy should reflect this landscape. Identify the handful of facts and documents that truly move liability or damages, quantify realistic outcomes, and test whether the opposing party can satisfy any agreement. Use without prejudice discussions and formal offers to protect cost consequences and create structured pressure. Time proposals to follow targeted information exchanges that narrow risk perceptions, but maintain litigation momentum so bargaining does not drift. The objective is a practical resolution grounded in proven liability and recoverability, not an abstract compromise.
The pleadings stage sets the scope of the lawsuit and organizes what the court must decide. Each side must file concise written pleadings that state the material facts relied on and the relief sought. Argument and evidence are left for later. Facts must be specific enough that, if proven, they would establish a recognized claim or defence. Immaterial detail, speculation, and long quotations from documents should be avoided. If the effect of a document or conversation matters, its substance may be pleaded without reproducing exact words unless the wording itself is in issue.
The usual sequence in an action is a statement of claim, a statement of defence, and, where needed, a reply. Allegations not denied are treated as admitted. New affirmative defences and special matters that could surprise the other side must be pleaded clearly. Parties should not anticipate possible defences or counter-allegations that have not yet been raised. Clarity, internal consistency, and a simple chronology help define the real issues, reduce motion practice, and guide discovery.
Pleadings also shape procedure. Counterclaims, cross-claims, and third party claims may be joined so related liabilities are determined together, subject to the court’s power to sever to prevent prejudice or delay. Where a pleading fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action or defence, is prolix, or pleads evidence rather than facts, it is vulnerable to attack and may be struck, amended, or cured by particulars. Amendments are often permitted to ensure cases are decided on their merits, but late or prejudicial changes may be refused. Properly drawn pleadings give fair notice, fence the boundaries of discovery, and provide a reliable record for trial and any appeal.
Amendment of pleadings exists to ensure disputes are decided on their merits. Amendments may add material facts, correct a misnomer, change or add parties, revise causes of action or defences, increase damages, or withdraw an admission. Before close of pleadings, some changes may be made without leave where no party is added, or with consent. Otherwise, leave is granted on terms unless non-compensable prejudice would result. On such a motion, proposed facts are treated as true and the question is whether the amendment is plainly untenable in law. Statute-barred claims cannot be added. Prejudice must be tied to the amendment itself and not rest only on delay or added complexity. Withdrawing an admission requires a triable issue, a reasonable explanation, and an absence of non-compensable prejudice. If leave is granted, the court may impose scheduling, discovery, or cost terms to manage any impact.
Clarity and precision in pleadings begin with a disciplined fact-pleading approach. Each pleading must set out a concise statement of the material facts that establish the claim or defence, not the evidence or argument. Causes of action and defences must be identifiable from those facts, pleaded in consecutively numbered paragraphs with one allegation per paragraph. Particulars should be sufficient to let the opposing party understand the case to meet and respond. Statutory provisions relied on should be identified, and affirmative defences that could otherwise surprise must be pleaded. If a document’s effect matters, plead its substance rather than reproducing it. Immaterial, speculative, or rhetorical allegations should be avoided, and content that cannot affect the outcome risks being struck as scandalous or vexatious. Parties are bound by their pleadings, though alternatives may be pleaded if clearly framed in the alternative. Well-drawn pleadings define the issues, guide discovery, and promote efficient case management.
Navigating procedural issues in pleadings starts with form compliance. Pleadings must meet Rule 4 formatting, include the correct general heading and backsheet, and be set out in consecutively numbered paragraphs with one allegation per paragraph. Substantive sufficiency should be tested on receipt. If allegations lack detail, a Demand for Particulars may be served, followed by a motion if particulars are not provided, and documents referenced but not held may be sought by a Request to Inspect with a production motion if access is not arranged. Where defects are more serious, a motion to strike may be brought on recognized grounds such as prejudice to a fair trial, scandalous or vexatious content, abuse of process, or failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action or defence; timeliness and the strategic value of summary judgment should be weighed. Motions attacking a pleading for no reasonable cause of action proceed without evidence, with particulars sought in the alternative if appropriate. Filing and service requirements, including electronic filing via the Civil Submissions Online Portal, must be observed.
Following the completion of pleadings, various procedural matters must be addressed. These include motions for summary judgment, applications for interim relief, and the consideration of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Our firm is equipped to handle these proceedings with precision and efficiency, minimizing the impact on the overall timeline of the case.
We advise clients on the strategic use of motions to resolve issues before trial, such as striking out pleadings, challenging jurisdiction, or seeking security for costs. By effectively managing post-pleadings considerations, we aim to streamline the litigation process and focus on achieving a favourable outcome for our clients.
Our team works closely with clients to identify and pursue appropriate motions that can expedite the resolution of their case. We provide guidance on the timing and preparation of motions, ensuring that they are supported by strong legal arguments and compelling evidence. Whether seeking to narrow the issues for trial or resolve the case entirely, our goal is to achieve the best possible result for our clients.
Summary judgment motions are used to resolve all or part of a case when a trial is unnecessary because no genuine issue requires a trial. The motion may be brought by either side, including on counterclaims, crossclaims, and third party claims, and must be supported with a focused evidentiary record, typically affidavits and key documents, since each party is expected to put its best case forward. Judges may weigh evidence, evaluate credibility on the written record, and draw reasonable inferences to decide whether the test is met, while associate judges lack those enhanced fact-finding powers. Timing should be assessed carefully: a motion launched before discovery may be stayed or case-managed if premature, but a well-shaped record can permit final disposition or meaningfully narrow issues. If the test is satisfied, judgment may be granted for all or part of the claim; if not, the matter proceeds by the procedure better suited to adjudication.
Applications for interim relief protect rights while a case is pending and the risk of loss or dissipation is real. The remedy selected should match the risk. Common options include an interlocutory injunction to maintain the status quo, an order preserving personal property, a certificate of pending litigation for land, the appointment of an interlocutory receiver to stabilize assets, security for costs to protect a defending party, and interpleader to safeguard a neutral stakeholder facing competing claims. Relief may be sought at the outset or later if circumstances change. Urgent motions can proceed without notice for a short period, usually with an undertaking to pay damages if the order proves unwarranted, followed by a prompt return hearing. Focused affidavit evidence should address the legal right asserted, the risk of irreparable harm, and why the balance of convenience favours the order.
Alternative dispute resolution covers structured processes outside a traditional trial, including mediation, arbitration, conciliation, expert determination, dispute review or advisory boards, ombudsperson processes, and court-annexed mediation or settlement conferences. It operates alongside the courts as part of modern civil justice. The choice of process should match the dispute’s needs, such as confidentiality, speed, industry expertise, relationship preservation, or a binding outcome that can be enforced. Effective use usually involves a short without-prejudice brief, targeted exchange of key documents, selection of a neutral with suitable authority and subject-matter knowledge, and settlement terms that are complete and enforceable. Deployed early, ADR can narrow or resolve issues, reduce cost and delay, and provide outcomes that better align legal risk with practical remedies.
The discovery stage is where each side must disclose its case and evidence before trial so the real issues can be defined and surprise reduced. It begins after pleadings close. Documentary discovery requires each party to serve a sworn affidavit of documents that lists all relevant records in their possession, control, or power, identifies claims of privilege, and explains what was once held but is no longer available. Disclosure is an ongoing duty and supplementary affidavits must be delivered if new relevant material is found. Opposing parties may inspect and obtain copies, subject to privilege, and refusals can be tested on a motion. Proportionality governs scope. Time, expense, prejudice, orderly progress, and the availability of information from other sources should be weighed to keep requests focused.
Oral discovery permits each party to examine the other, or a corporate representative, on any matter relevant to the issues raised by the pleadings. Questions should be answered unless they are clearly irrelevant or privileged. Undertakings to obtain and produce additional information must be tracked and fulfilled. The court retains power to control discovery, to compel proper answers, to order further discovery where fairness requires it, and to curb abusive tactics with directions or costs. Additional tools include inspection of property where necessary, physical or mental examinations where a condition is in issue, written questions, and requests to admit facts or authenticity to narrow proof at trial. Properly managed discovery narrows disputes, improves case assessment, and often creates a platform for settlement while building a reliable record for motions and trial.
Document discovery centres on two linked duties: disclosure and production. Each party must swear an affidavit of documents that discloses, to the full extent of knowledge, all documents relevant to any matter in issue that are or were in the party’s possession, control, or power. The affidavit lists three schedules: documents to be produced, documents withheld on a stated claim of privilege, and documents formerly held with details of when, how, and where they went. Relevance is measured by the pleadings, and proportionality should guide scope. “Document” includes electronic data and social media, not just paper. Parties exchange affidavits rather than file them, then produce requested non-privileged documents and keep disclosure up to date if new materials are found. Privileged items must be described with enough specificity to test the claim, and late disclosure can restrict use at trial. Where state investigative records exist, their existence must be disclosed and any production typically proceeds through a Wagg-style process that balances access with public interest protections.
Examinations for discovery are used to learn the case to be met, obtain admissions that remove the need for formal proof, test weaknesses in the opposing case, narrow issues, promote settlement, and prevent surprise at trial. Scope is governed by the pleadings, relevance, and proportionality. A witness must answer proper questions relevant to any matter in issue to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, and an answer cannot be refused solely because the question seeks evidence or resembles cross-examination. Reasonable preparation is required, including inquiries within the party’s organization. If information is not immediately available, an undertaking to obtain and provide it should be given and tracked. Proper refusals are limited to questions that are immaterial, irrelevant, privileged, disproportionate, or otherwise unanswerable. Ancillary rules require disclosure of the names of persons with relevant knowledge and the existence and basic contents of insurance that may respond to a judgment. Courts supervise the process to curb abuse and maintain efficiency.
Inspection of property and medical examinations are court-supervised discovery tools used when direct access to things or to a party’s condition is required. An inspection may be ordered where it is necessary for proper determination of an issue, and the order can authorize entry, measuring, photographing, sampling, or testing, including limited destructive testing, with specified time, place, manner, and just terms. Necessity is applied broadly as usefulness to resolving an issue, subject to refusal where countervailing prejudice or abuse would result. Medical examinations may be ordered when a party’s physical or mental condition is in issue. A first defence medical generally requires no justification beyond fairness, while additional examinations require necessity tied to trial fairness. Orders should name the examiner, define scope, and may require pre-examination delivery of non-litigation medical records in the party’s possession. Recording or attendance conditions may be imposed only where justified. These mechanisms aim to level the playing field while preserving proportionality and procedural safeguards.
Motions are mini-hearings within a lawsuit that obtain directions or interim relief so the case can move forward efficiently. A motion is ordinarily heard in open court. It may proceed in writing or on consent where appropriate. Every person who may be affected must receive proper notice stating the relief sought, the legal basis, and the hearing details. The usual lead time is short, and defective or late notice risks adjournment or dismissal. In rare situations a motion may proceed without notice, but only where service is impracticable or delay risks serious harm. Full and fair disclosure must be given on any without-notice request, and the order is typically revisited promptly on a return hearing.
A complete motion record must be prepared and served. The notice of motion should be concise and precise. Affidavits must set out facts within personal knowledge or, if information and belief is used, the source must be identified. Key documents should be attached as exhibits rather than paraphrased. Cross-examinations on affidavits may be scheduled and their transcripts included. Where a factum is required, it should state the issues, the governing test, and the brief argument with pinpoint references to the record. A short compendium and book of authorities may be provided if helpful. Page limits, formatting, and electronic filing rules must be followed. A confirmation form or similar scheduling step is often needed before the hearing to confirm time estimates and materials filed.
Judges hear most contested motions, while associate judges handle many procedural and case-management matters. The court may weigh evidence on some motions, decide narrow legal issues on others, or give procedural directions that shape what must happen next. Remedies vary. Common orders compel production, answers, or compliance with timelines, preserve property or the status quo, strike improper content, or stay all or part of a proceeding. Costs usually follow the event and can be fixed on the spot. Consent orders may be submitted in writing. If an evidentiary conflict cannot be resolved fairly on the record, the court may order viva voce evidence on a narrow point or convert the dispute to a focused trial of an issue. Throughout, proportionality guides the process: the relief sought, the evidence filed, and the time requested should match the importance and complexity of the issue so that trial time is reserved for what truly requires it.
Procedural motions are the routine mini-hearings used to keep a case on track and to obtain practical directions. Typical requests include extending or abridging timelines, amending pleadings, compelling answers or undertakings, ordering further production, adding or removing parties, consolidating or severing issues, and preserving property or the status quo where appropriate. These motions are brought by notice to every affected person and supported by a focused record that states the precise relief, the grounds, and the evidence, with a factum where required. Basic timelines apply, including the usual minimum notice period before the hearing. Jurisdiction depends on the relief sought: judges may hear any motion, associate judges have broad but defined authority, and registrars can make certain consent or default-based orders. Local practice directions may prescribe additional scheduling, filing, and hearing requirements in specific regions
Substantive motions seek a merits-based decision without a full trial where no genuine issue requires one. Typical examples include summary judgment, striking a pleading that discloses no reasonable claim or defence, determining a question of law that can dispose of all or part of the action, or granting judgment on admissions. A disciplined record must be assembled: concise notice setting out the relief and grounds, sworn evidence that puts forward the best available case, key documents as exhibits, and cross-examination transcripts where needed. A focused factum should state the issues, the governing test, and the precise relief requested. Timing must be chosen carefully so the record is complete enough for reliable fact-finding, while avoiding unnecessary delay. The court may weigh evidence, draw reasonable inferences, and narrow or resolve claims; where written materials are insufficient, limited viva voce evidence or a directed trial of an issue may be ordered. Outcomes range from final judgment to partial dismissal, declaratory relief, or tailored procedural directions, with costs following the event. Proportionality should guide the scope of evidence and argument so the motion matches the importance and complexity of what it aims to decide.
Interlocutory and injunctive relief protects rights while a case is pending and the risk of harm is immediate. An applicant must show a serious issue to be tried, a risk of irreparable harm that money cannot fix, and that the balance of convenience favours the order. Relief should match the risk. Common tools include interlocutory injunctions to maintain the status quo, preservation orders over property or data, certificates of pending litigation to secure interests in land, Mareva injunctions to freeze assets, Anton Piller orders to preserve critical evidence in exceptional circumstances, and the appointment of a receiver where neutral control is necessary. Evidence must be focused and sworn, with clear particulars of the right asserted, the threatened harm, and why lesser measures are inadequate. Without-notice requests require full and fair disclosure and are usually paired with an undertaking to pay damages if the order later proves unwarranted, followed by a prompt return hearing. Orders should be time-limited, tailored, and include practical terms for access, inspection, security, and reporting so that the remedy is effective while remaining proportionate.
Setting a claim for trial begins once pleadings are closed and at least one party is ready. Any party that is not in default may set the action down by serving a trial record on every party and promptly filing it with proof of service. Where mandatory mediation applies, confirmation that mediation has been held or scheduled must be filed before the action is set down. If the trial will occur at a different place than where the action was commenced, a requisition must transfer the court file to the trial office. After filing, the registrar places defended actions on the appropriate list, usually 60 days later unless all other parties consent to earlier listing, with separate lists maintained for jury, non-jury, and speedy trials.
The trial record must be complete and orderly. It includes any jury notice, all pleadings and particulars, any orders respecting the trial, and a certificate confirming that pleadings are closed, that any non-defending party has been noted in default, and that judgments or discontinuances are reflected where applicable. The party who filed the record must add later trial orders and pre-trial reports as they are made. In Toronto, a certification process follows about 60 days after filing: the court sends available dates, the parties consult, and a completed certification form must be returned or the case risks being struck from the list and later restored only with leave.
Setting a matter down carries consequences. The party who does so may not initiate or continue discovery or most interlocutory motions without leave, subject to limited ongoing obligations and express exceptions. Once listed, all parties are deemed ready and the trial proceeds when reached unless the court orders otherwise. Dismissal for delay regimes also apply if a case languishes off the trial list.
Witness lists and expert reports define what evidence a court will hear and how complex issues will be proved. In Ontario civil cases, parties disclose the people who are likely to have relevant knowledge, often including contact information and brief subject areas. Pre-trial materials typically include a stand-alone witness list with estimated time for each witness so the court can plan the hearing. Expert evidence follows a more structured regime. An expert report usually describes the expert’s qualifications, the issues addressed, the facts and documents relied on, the methodology used, and the opinions and conclusions reached, and in some contexts underlying test data may be produced. Medical reports created for litigation are generally privileged until served, subject to statutory rules. Courts manage late or incomplete disclosure through a leave process that considers the explanation for the lapse, potential prejudice, and whether the trial can still proceed fairly and efficiently. The overall aim is transparency, avoidance of surprise, and a trial record that can be tested and scheduled in an orderly way.
Pre-trial motions are short hearings held just before a trial to resolve issues that could affect how the case proceeds. Common requests include striking a matter from the trial list or permitting it to proceed in a party’s absence, seeking or resisting an adjournment, amending pleadings on the eve of trial, obtaining leave to call more than three expert witnesses, striking a jury notice, and excluding witnesses from the courtroom until they testify. These motions are discretionary and turn on fairness to the parties and the orderly use of court time. Judges consider factors such as surprise, prejudice, preparation needs, illness, and the availability of key witnesses, and may impose terms, including costs, when granting or refusing relief. The usual practice is to address all preliminary motions before any opening statements or evidence, so the trial can start with clear boundaries, a settled witness plan, and a schedule that reflects the realities of the case.
Trial strategy and coordination bring the moving parts of a civil case into a single, coherent plan for a public, adversarial hearing that ends in a binding judgment. Strategy turns the pleadings and discovery record into a trial narrative, decides whether the case proceeds before a judge alone or a judge and jury, and organizes the order of witnesses, documents, and admissions so the trier of fact can decide the issues efficiently. Coordination covers courtroom logistics, scheduling, and compliance with the judge’s control over the conduct of the proceeding, while respecting the open court principle and any limited exceptions ordered in the interests of justice. Within this framework, counsel present evidence through examination and cross-examination, relate that evidence to the legal questions the court must answer, and make submissions on the record. The outcome is determined on the evidence and arguments presented, with reasons or a jury verdict completing the process.
A civil trial is a structured, public hearing where disputed facts and legal issues are decided on the evidence. The case is heard by a judge or by a judge and jury, depending on the choices made earlier and any limits set by law. The party bringing the claim carries the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. Proceedings follow a predictable sequence. Preliminary housekeeping and any remaining pre-trial rulings are addressed, the trier of fact is confirmed, and, in a jury case, jurors are selected and given preliminary instructions. Each side gives a brief opening to outline the issues the evidence will address. Witnesses then testify under oath through examination-in-chief and cross-examination, with the judge ruling on objections and admissibility. Documents, business records, photographs, and expert reports become exhibits where the rules of evidence are met, and admissions can shorten what needs to be proved.
Judges control the pace and fairness of the hearing, manage schedules, and can exclude witnesses from the courtroom until they testify to prevent tailoring. Short voir dires may be held to resolve evidentiary questions without the jury present. When the plaintiff’s evidence is complete, the defence may call its case or argue that no case has been made out. After all evidence closes, each side delivers closing submissions that link the proven facts to the legal issues. In a jury trial, the judge instructs on the law and the questions to be answered. The result is given by verdict or by written reasons. Costs are usually addressed after judgment, and post-trial steps can include enforcement or an appeal. Throughout, the open court principle applies, subject to narrow exceptions to protect privacy, safety, or the integrity of the process.
Opening statements orient the judge or jury to the parties, the storyline of events, and the issues the case raises. In Ontario civil trials, the plaintiff opens first. A defendant may open immediately with leave or may wait until the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, and judge-alone trials generally follow a similar sequence. An opening is a brief, non-argumentative roadmap that introduces who is involved, summarizes what happened, highlights the questions the court must decide, and previews the witnesses and exhibits that will be called. It is not evidence and it is not a closing argument. Courts emphasize restraint and accuracy because an opening frames how the trier of fact receives the evidence. If an opening strays into improper commentary or prejudicial assertions, the judge may give corrective directions and, in serious cases, consider stronger remedies to protect trial fairness.
Examination and cross-examination are the core mechanisms by which evidence is presented and tested at trial. A witness first gives evidence in chief, usually without leading questions except on background or non-contentious matters. Documents may be used to refresh memory or to prove facts where admissible, and the court can declare a witness adverse or hostile if the interests of justice require more pointed questioning. Cross-examination probes credibility and reliability, challenges key facts, and may confront a witness with prior inconsistent statements or contradictory documents. Leading questions are generally permitted on cross and the scope is broad, subject to fairness and relevance. Re-examination is limited to clarifying matters that arose on cross and cannot introduce wholly new topics except with leave. Expert witnesses present opinion evidence built on disclosed qualifications, assumptions, and methods, and may be questioned on the foundation and limits of those opinions. Judges manage the sequence, rule on objections, and may exclude witnesses from the courtroom until they testify to reduce the risk of tailoring.
Closing arguments are the final opportunity to explain how the evidence fits the issues the court must decide. Counsel review the facts proven on the record, draw reasonable inferences, address credibility, and relate the evidence to the elements of each claim or defence and to damages. New evidence is not permitted, and submissions must remain grounded in what the witnesses said and what the exhibits show. The court controls the order and timing of addresses; in many civil trials the plaintiff speaks first and the defendant follows, and a limited reply may be permitted where appropriate. In jury cases, counsel speak to the facts while the judge instructs on the law and frames the questions for deliberation. Objections to improper commentary can be dealt with immediately, sometimes with corrective directions to the jury. The aim is a concise, accurate synthesis of the record that helps the trier of fact apply the governing legal tests and reach a clear, reasoned result.
Post-trial considerations focus on review, enforcement, and finality. A civil judgment is presumed valid, and a party pursuing appellate review carries the burden of showing error on the record rather than relitigating the case. Rights of appeal are statutory. Some decisions are appealable as of right while others require leave, which is typically granted where the proposed appeal raises an unsettled legal question or an issue of general importance, and applicants are expected to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success. Appellate courts distinguish questions of law, questions of fact, and mixed questions, applying correctness to pure questions of law, a deferential palpable-and-overriding-error test to factual findings, and a mixed standard that can shift if an extricable legal error is identified. Technically, the appellate process turns on formal steps: serving and, if necessary, amending a notice of appeal before perfection, and then perfecting the appeal within the timelines set by the rules. Parallel to appellate planning, parties consider costs awards and interest, whether to seek or resist a stay pending appeal, and practical enforcement questions so that the judgment is either preserved or implemented while review is underway. The overall aim of these post-trial mechanisms is to correct material error, promote consistency in the law, and bring disputes to a principled close.
Considering litigation or dispute resolution? Our Toronto civil litigation lawyers represent clients across Ontario, offering tailored solutions and dedicated support. Choose Grigoras Law for skilled advocacy and a high standard of service; every aspect of your case receives our focused attention.
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service