How trauma informed rule changes could reshape justice, especially for sexual assault survivors
Ontario has a rare opportunity to set the standard for civil justice in Canada — but only if its long‑awaited overhaul of the Rules of Civil Procedure is rebuilt around trauma‑informed principles, says Gluckstein Lawyers’ Simona Jellinek.
“Every single one of these new rules must be analyzed from that lens,” stresses Jellinek, senior counsel and leader of the firm’s Sexual Abuse and Assault team. “If that’s done, the changes could distinguish Ontario as a leader of civil justice reform and access to justice in Canada.”
Proposed Rules ‘would have been devastating’ to sexual violence survivors
Ontario’s push to modernize its civil justice system began with proposed sweeping changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure. Currently in the final phase of implementation, in Phase 2 of the Civil Rules Review, the Working Group — co-chaired by Superior Court Justice Cary Boswell — focused on consultation. They put out a broad call for input from the bar and other stakeholders.
At the time, Jellinek sat on the board of directors of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) and was part of a task force that combed through the proposals and coordinated OTLA’s response. She zeroed in on how the draft rules would play out for vulnerable litigants — particularly survivors of sexual violence and seriously injured plaintiffs.
A major flashpoint for Jellinek was the proposed pre‑litigation protocol and its up‑front model of evidence, which would have forced the plaintiff to disclose their current address, personal financial information and health and psychological records. This would be sent directly to an alleged abuser, who may very well be convicted of a criminal offense related to the civil claims, before the alleged abuser would even have retained counsel. She calls the proposed change alarming and potential dangerous.
“That was of grave concern to us because you’d have no idea what the alleged abuser was going to do with the information; it could be devastating for survivors,” she says. “You can imagine how horrifying that would be to our clients — or any plaintiff in a personal injury case. It would put a chill on meritorious claims.” Providing the alleged abuser with such personal information could lead to physical confrontations given that the abuser would have access to the plaintiff’s address, and in today’s internet age what the abuser may do with such personal information cannot be controlled, Jellinek notes.
Equally troubling were the proposed changes to remove discovery altogether. Instead, plaintiffs would provide affidavit evidence. This was cause for concern across the personal injury bar, Jellinek notes, but again held specific ramifications for her clients.
First, 90 per cent of her cases “are really a he-said, she-said” and examination for discovery is where credibility is assessed. That process is nuanced, Jellinek stresses, and “it’s not done on paper alone.”
Second, it takes away a survivor’s testament to their experience, which is an important part of the civil process for many of her clients.
“Even if they read the affidavit and agree with it, it’s really not allowing them a chance to have their personal voice heard,” she explains, pulling no punches in her final analysis of the changes.
“The Rules as first envisioned would have been devastating.”
From ‘no changes’ to humbled by trauma‑informed critiques
Thankfully, Justice Boswell was open to hearing more about trauma-informed practice. Along with OTLA’s formal response[MH1] , submissions from sexual assault centres across Ontario bolstered the overall message. Their input, even though it came after the formal deadline, prompted a personal response: Justice Boswell contacted the centres directly and set up a meeting.
While it seemed clear there hadn’t been much consideration of the proposed changes via a trauma-informed perspective, “Justice Boswell recognized how important it was,” believes Jellinek, says, and by the time the final policy report was submitted to the government in October 2025 the tenor had shifted and “they did make some good changes,” Jellinek says.
Most notably for Jellinek’s practice, the pre‑litigation protocol won’t include sexual violence claims; survivors will not be forced to send their most sensitive information to the alleged abuser directly. While it’s a carve‑out she greeted with relief, she’s clear she believes it should go a step further and be removed for all personal injury claims.
On the discovery front, the Working Group also walked back complete elimination of examinations for discovery. However, it will be limited to 90 minutes per side of usable evidence. After the 90 minutes are over, the parties can continue the examination, but, any dispute as to the evidence will not be dealt with if the disagreement is after the 90-minute mark.
“I’ll have an hour and a half to examine multiple parties on complex, often historic abuse,” Jellinek sums up. “That’s a problem, and further it will create bullies because getting everything you need in only 90 minutes calls for an aggressive questioning manner that is the antithesis of trauma informed. It’s a far cry from the careful, paced approach that allows survivors to participate safely while still giving both sides the evidence they need.”
Cautious optimism — and what Ontario must do next
Given a well-coordinated airing of concerns has already made a considerable difference, Jellinek describes her outlook as cautiously optimistic.
“We were very buoyed by the fact that the Working Group listened and took some of what we said to heart, but there's still a lot of work that needs to be done in order to make the Rules more trauma informed,” she says.
For Jellinek, the path forward is clear, if not easy. She wants to see every element of the final package “analyzed from a trauma informed lens by people who understand what trauma informed means,” including a team of trauma informed lawyers and other specialists who can flag the long- term ramifications of each rule. If Ontario is willing to slow down enough to subject every piece of the reform package to that kind of genuine, expert analysis, Jellinek believes “it will absolutely be beneficial to all Ontarians.”
“This is Ontario’s change to be a leader among Canadian jurisdictions on civil justice and access to justice.”
This article was produced in partnership with Gluckstein Lawyers
