Simplified Procedure – Litigation #3

including interest or legal costs). Use of the simplified procedure is:

• Mandatory if the plaintiff’s total claim is $200,000 or less.
• Optional if the claim exceeds $200,000, provided the defendant does not object, or if the plaintiff is willing to forgo any amount over $200,000.

However, simplified procedure does not apply to:

• Class actions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992;
• Construction Act matters (except trust claims);
• Actions assigned to case management under Rule 77.05; or
• Cases where a jury notice has been delivered.

The process includes several efficiency-focused features:

• No jury trials, except in cases involving libel, slander, malicious prosecution, malicious arrest, or false imprisonment.
• Oral discovery is limited to a total of 3 hours, regardless of how many parties or witnesses are being examined.
• Trials cannot exceed 5 days.
• Cost recovery is capped: plaintiffs may recover no more than $50,000 in legal fees and $25,000 in disbursements, plus HST.
• Parties must agree on a Trial Management Plan before the pre-trial conference.

Additionally, parties may opt for a summary trial under Rule 76.12, where the case is decided based on affidavit evidence with limited oral evidence, helping to further reduce time and expense.

Despite its name, the simplified procedure isn’t always that simple, at least not from a lawyer’s perspective. While the process is meant to be more efficient than a full trial, the reality is that many of the tasks lawyers must complete are just as demanding as in regular litigation. Drafting pleadings, preparing affidavits, attending discoveries, managing documents, and preparing for trial all remain time-consuming and detail-intensive.

This leads to a common frustration among clients: if the procedure is simplified, why aren’t the legal fees simplified too? Whether they are plaintiffs or defendants, many clients enter Rule 76 litigation expecting a proportionally lower legal bill, only to discover that the cost of representation can still be substantial.

And this isn’t just about perception, it reflects a real tension in the justice system. Take this example: someone lends a friend $100,000. The friend refuses to pay it back, stops responding, and blocks all contact. The lender is left with no choice but to sue. But because the amount exceeds $35,000, the case can’t go to Small Claims Court. And even under the simplified procedure, pursuing the debt might still cost tens of thousands in legal fees, making the whole process feel economically disproportionate.

In short, while the simplified procedure aims to create efficiency and access, the cost of litigation remains a barrier, especially in mid-size disputes that fall into the grey area between Small Claims Court and full-scale litigation.

It’s important to distinguish between Small Claims Court and the simplified procedure, as they differ significantly in scope, formality, and representation.

Small Claims Court handles monetary claims of $35,000 or less, and the process is designed to be faster, more accessible, and less formal. The evidentiary rules are more flexible, and parties are not required to follow the full procedural rigour of higher courts.

Importantly, licensed paralegals in Ontario are permitted to represent clients in Small Claims Court. This offers a more affordable alternative to hiring a lawyer, especially for straightforward debt collection, contract disputes, or property damage claims. For many individuals and small businesses, paralegals provide a practical and cost-effective way to pursue or defend a case.

Simplified procedure, by contrast, applies to claims up to $200,000 and is governed by Rule 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. While the process is streamlined compared to standard litigation, it still takes place in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which means formal rules of evidence, procedure, and advocacy continue to apply. In these cases, only lawyers are authorized to represent clients in court, as paralegals are not licensed to appear in Superior Court civil matters.

While some plaintiffs may intentionally lower their claim to $200,000 or below to qualify for simplified procedure, artificially inflating a small claim, such as a $2,000 debt, to $201,000 just to avoid simplified rules, is not only improper, but may also be considered an abuse of process or even fraudulent.