<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Civil Procedure &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/tag/civil-procedure/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2026 01:50:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.25</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Who’s on First (to be Examined at Discovery)?</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/whos-on-first-to-be-examined-at-discovery/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=whos-on-first-to-be-examined-at-discovery</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/whos-on-first-to-be-examined-at-discovery/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2026 21:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7892</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Michael Kryworuk In October 2026, Justice Spencer Nicholson released his Endorsement in A.F. v. The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of London in Ontario, 2026 ONSC 6201, following a case conference to resolve a dispute about whether the plaintiff should be required to be examined for discovery before the representatives of the [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/whos-on-first-to-be-examined-at-discovery/">Who’s on First (to be Examined at Discovery)?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/whos-on-first-to-be-examined-at-discovery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Relevant and Proportional: A Case Analysis Surrounding Production of Documents in Litigation</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/relevant-and-proportional-a-case-analysis-surrounding-production-of-documents-in-litigation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=relevant-and-proportional-a-case-analysis-surrounding-production-of-documents-in-litigation</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/relevant-and-proportional-a-case-analysis-surrounding-production-of-documents-in-litigation/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2026 13:42:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7866</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Kathryn Orydzuk Background The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released an Endorsement in George W. Corporation v. Gomma, 2026 ONSC 5811 on October 14, 2026, in relation to a motion brought by the plaintiffs for the production of further disclosure and a further and better affidavit of documents. In the broader litigation, the plaintiff [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/relevant-and-proportional-a-case-analysis-surrounding-production-of-documents-in-litigation/">Relevant and Proportional: A Case Analysis Surrounding Production of Documents in Litigation</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/relevant-and-proportional-a-case-analysis-surrounding-production-of-documents-in-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario’s Uninsured Vehicle Tort Bar: “I Owned It” is Not the End of the Story</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontarios-uninsured-vehicle-tort-bar-i-owned-it-is-not-the-end-of-the-story/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ontarios-uninsured-vehicle-tort-bar-i-owned-it-is-not-the-end-of-the-story</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontarios-uninsured-vehicle-tort-bar-i-owned-it-is-not-the-end-of-the-story/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2026 22:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7859</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jessica Rost Under Section 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act, a tort claim by the owner of a motor vehicle may be barred if he or she does not have insurance on the vehicle at the time of the incident, in contravention of s.2(1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. The recent decision in Bennett [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontarios-uninsured-vehicle-tort-bar-i-owned-it-is-not-the-end-of-the-story/">Ontario’s Uninsured Vehicle Tort Bar: “I Owned It” is Not the End of the Story</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontarios-uninsured-vehicle-tort-bar-i-owned-it-is-not-the-end-of-the-story/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-149/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-149</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-149/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 23:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7844</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Nathan Ching discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Johnson v. Rajanna et al, 2026 ONSC 4875. In this recent decision, the court affirmed various principles of Rule 49 settlement offers, including when an opposing party can rely on the apparent authority of counsel to accept [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-149/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-149/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should I Stay an Arbitration or Should I Go</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/should-i-stay-an-arbitration-or-should-i-go/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=should-i-stay-an-arbitration-or-should-i-go</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/should-i-stay-an-arbitration-or-should-i-go/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 23:05:55 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7823</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Cameron Allan In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice provides guidance on a novel remedy under Section 13 (7) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and determines the appropriate test for when a stay of an arbitration should be granted. Overview In&#160;Atkinsréalis Construction (Pacific) Inc. v. GIP Construction Ontario East Ltd., 2026 [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/should-i-stay-an-arbitration-or-should-i-go/">Should I Stay an Arbitration or Should I Go</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/should-i-stay-an-arbitration-or-should-i-go/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bifurcation: Another Tool in the Toolbelt</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/bifurcation-another-tool-in-the-toolbelt/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bifurcation-another-tool-in-the-toolbelt</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/bifurcation-another-tool-in-the-toolbelt/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7779</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Zoe Panday Often in our practice, we are seeking to manage complex proceedings where multiple claims are issued relating to the same loss. Actions can move at different paces and face different procedural hurdles. Both counsel and the court are tasked with addressing these issues with a view to preventing inconsistent results and reducing [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/bifurcation-another-tool-in-the-toolbelt/">Bifurcation: Another Tool in the Toolbelt</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/bifurcation-another-tool-in-the-toolbelt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Demeanor Remains Relevant When Assessing Credibility at Examinations for Discovery</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/demeanor-remains-relevant-when-assessing-credibility-at-examinations-for-discovery/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=demeanor-remains-relevant-when-assessing-credibility-at-examinations-for-discovery</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/demeanor-remains-relevant-when-assessing-credibility-at-examinations-for-discovery/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 23:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7748</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Shane Marston After completing examinations for discovery, my clients will often ask how the witnesses presented during the examinations—did they come across as credible? Discussion of the relevance of demeanor at examinations for discovery is limited in the case law. There is a large volume of research and discussion surrounding the assessment of a [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/demeanor-remains-relevant-when-assessing-credibility-at-examinations-for-discovery/">Demeanor Remains Relevant When Assessing Credibility at Examinations for Discovery</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/demeanor-remains-relevant-when-assessing-credibility-at-examinations-for-discovery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Update On Civil Rules Review</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/update-regarding-civil-rules-review/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=update-regarding-civil-rules-review</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/update-regarding-civil-rules-review/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:14:08 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7744</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Sebastian di Domenico As civil litigators across Ontario wait with bated breath, a joint statement from Attorney General Downey and Former Chief Justice Morawetz was released on May 28, 2026. The joint statement is promising since it suggests that the incoming changes will be implemented in a sequenced manner. In their joint statement, they [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/update-regarding-civil-rules-review/">Update On Civil Rules Review</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/update-regarding-civil-rules-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>From Axe to Scalpel: Ontario Court of Appeal Overrules the Handley Estate Rule</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/from-axe-to-scalpel-ontario-court-of-appeal-overrules-the-handley-estate-rule/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=from-axe-to-scalpel-ontario-court-of-appeal-overrules-the-handley-estate-rule</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/from-axe-to-scalpel-ontario-court-of-appeal-overrules-the-handley-estate-rule/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 21:41:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7741</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Sarah Sevier In a significant decision for Ontario litigants, the Ontario Court of Appeal, sitting as a five-member panel, overturned the Handley Estate Rule in 1086289 Ontario Inc. (Urban Electrical Contractors) v. Welland (City), 2026 ONCA 352, restoring the application of the ordinary abuse of process principles to cases involving the non-disclosure of partial [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/from-axe-to-scalpel-ontario-court-of-appeal-overrules-the-handley-estate-rule/">From Axe to Scalpel: Ontario Court of Appeal Overrules the Handley Estate Rule</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/from-axe-to-scalpel-ontario-court-of-appeal-overrules-the-handley-estate-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Rules They Are a-Changin’</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-rules-they-are-a-changin/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-rules-they-are-a-changin</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-rules-they-are-a-changin/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 17:34:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[From the Desk of]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7711</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Mihail Salariu Over 60 years ago, in 1964, Bob Dylan wrote a folk song about social, cultural and generational change, warning that those who do not adapt to the new will be left behind. Though Mr. Dylan had loftier and more poetic changes in mind, and may even be a little upset to have [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-rules-they-are-a-changin/">The Rules They Are a-Changin’</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-rules-they-are-a-changin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
