When Can You Discontinue an Action in Ontario?

When a plaintiff wants to discontinue an action against a defendant before the close of pleadings in Ontario, they have the right to do so by serving a Notice of Discontinuance on all parties served with a statement of claim and filing the notice with proof of service in the registrar’s office.
Businesswoman hands working in Stacks of paper files for searching and checking unfinished document

How to Discontinue an Action Before the Close of Pleadings

When a plaintiff wants to discontinue an action against a defendant before the close of pleadings in Ontario, they have the right to do so by serving a Notice of Discontinuance on all parties served with a statement of claim and filing the notice with proof of service in the registrar’s office. Rule 25.05 governs the close of pleadings and provides that pleadings are closed when the plaintiff has delivered a reply to every defence in the action or the time for delivery of a reply has expired, and every defendant who is in default in delivering a defence in the action has been noted in default. It’s worth noting that if a defendant has not been served with a statement of claim, the plaintiff isn’t required to serve the notice of discontinuance on that defendant. Additionally, it’s not possible for any party or the court to compel another party to discontinue an action, and so long as a limitation period hasn’t expired or the plaintiff is not prohibited from doing so, they can commence a further action.

How to Discontinue an Action After the Close of Pleadings

The ability of a plaintiff to discontinue an action without leave of the court is limited to a certain stage in the proceedings, after which the court must consider all relevant circumstances in deciding whether or not to grant leave to discontinue. The court must balance and weigh the rights and interests of both parties, taking into account the potential prejudice to each party. Prejudice may include the loss of evidence or witnesses, the denial of a trial, and the potential for further litigation. If the court decides to grant leave to discontinue, it may impose terms to address any prejudice to the defendant. The court may also refuse leave to discontinue if there is a concern of abuse or substantial prejudice to the defendant, which would require compelling evidence from the opposing party. If a plaintiff seeks to discontinue an action for the purpose of circumventing an interim order or to evade the effect of an order, it may be considered an abuse of process. In such cases, the plaintiff may be required to provide an undertaking not to bring any further actions for the same cause of action.

Considering discontinuing a legal action in Ontario? Ensure you're making the right move.

Talk to a Civil Litigation Lawyer

INTAKE FORM

Share:

More Posts

Screen displaying social media platform icons representing online platform liability for defamatory reviews in Canadian law

Can You Sue Google for a Defamatory Review? What Canadian Law Says

A false review on Google Maps can reach thousands of people and stay there indefinitely. The person behind it may be anonymous and untraceable. Can you sue Google instead? Recent Canadian decisions in Thorpe v. Boakye and Jeffery v. Almusslat suggest the answer is increasingly yes, where the platform had notice, had control, and chose not to act.

What Every Director Needs to Know: Board Governance and Legal Obligations in Canada

The board of directors sits at the centre of Canadian corporate governance, bearing ultimate legal responsibility for how a corporation is managed. This article covers the statutory requirements for board composition, the meaning of director independence, what powers the board can and cannot delegate, and how unanimous shareholders’ agreements redistribute duties and liabilities between directors and shareholders.

Rows of bankers boxes on shelves representing third-party document disclosure in a Norwich Order application

Unmasking the Wrongdoer: Norwich Orders in Canadian Civil Litigation

When you know a wrong has been committed but cannot identify who did it, ordinary civil procedure offers no path forward. The Norwich Order fills that gap. It compels a third party mixed up in wrongdoing to disclose information before proceedings start, allowing a victim to identify a wrongdoer, trace stolen assets, or confirm whether a cause of action exists. This article explains the test, the limits, and how the remedy works in practice.

Pinocchio's nose growing as a metaphor for fraud by silence and concealment in Canadian law

What You Don’t Say: Fraudulent Concealment and the Duty to Disclose in Canadian Law

Silence is generally not fraud — but in a meaningful range of circumstances it is, and the consequences are identical to an outright lie. This article explains when Canadian courts will find that a party’s failure to speak is actionable fraud, what duty to disclose arises and from what relationships, how half-truths are treated, and how fraudulent concealment can suspend limitation periods that would otherwise bar a claim.

Confidential consultation

09000 00000

65 Queen Street west, Suite 1240, toronto, Ontario M5H 2M5

Requeast a Consulastion

our team of experienced lawyers are at your service