O. Reg. 322/24: Form 2.1A and the 2024 Amendments to Rule 2.1

When Rule 2.1 was introduced in 2014, it authorized the court to stay or dismiss a proceeding on its own initiative. It was framed as a narrow administrative filter for proceedings that appeared on their face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

At that time, Form 2.1A was a notice issued to the plaintiff advising that the proceeding (or motion) might be stayed or dismissed. It formed part of the court-initiated screening process. A party did not use Form 2.1A to request that the court invoke Rule 2.1.

In 2024, O. Reg. 322/24 altered that framework. The court may now act on its own initiative or on the request of a party. Form 2.1A was repurposed as a formal request by which a party may ask the court to consider making an order under Rule 2.1. The former Form 2.1A notice was replaced by the new Form 2.1A request, while Form 2.1B became the notice that the proceeding (or motion) may be stayed or dismissed.

The significance of this change is not merely the introduction of a new form. The function of Form 2.1A changed. What had been a court-issued notice in a court-initiated screening process became a party-initiated request for the court to commence that process.

Procedural Differences from Ordinary Motions

A party seeking to strike a claim under Rule 21 or to obtain summary judgment under Rule 20 must bring a motion, prepare a motion record, serve materials, and proceed through the applicable motion procedure. The moving party bears the burden of establishing entitlement to the relief sought.

Form 2.1A operates differently. A party may request that the court consider Rule 2.1 by serving the prescribed request on the other parties and filing it with proof of service. The request is not an ordinary Rule 20 or Rule 21 motion. The court first reviews the request and determines whether it may be appropriate to make an order under Rule 2.1. If so, the registrar issues notice in Form 2.1B.

Once Form 2.1B issues, Rule 2.1.01(7) stays the proceeding and restricts further steps except those permitted by Rule 2.1 or ordered by the court. The plaintiff is then required to explain, within the prescribed period and subject to the applicable page limit, why the proceeding should not be stayed or dismissed.

The practical effect is that the ordinary burden associated with a Rule 20 or Rule 21 motion is not placed on the requesting party in the same way. The requesting party does not have to establish entitlement to dismissal through the conventional motion-record process before asking the court to consider Rule 2.1. Once Form 2.1B issues, the plaintiff must justify the continuation of the proceeding while it is stayed and while ordinary procedural steps are restricted.

The distinction is important. A Form 2.1A request does not itself establish that the proceeding is abusive, nor does it automatically trigger the stay. The court must first determine that it may be appropriate to make an order under Rule 2.1. Nevertheless, the request provides a party with access to a summary screening mechanism that differs materially from ordinary motion procedures.

Structural Asymmetry

Form 2.1A is formally available to any party to the proceeding. The rule does not restrict the right to make a request to defendants or respondents.

In practice, however, the procedure creates a significant incentive asymmetry. A defendant or respondent has a clear reason to request dismissal of the plaintiff’s proceeding. A plaintiff ordinarily has little reason to request the dismissal of their own claim.

The formalization of party requests therefore creates a procedural tool that is likely to be used predominantly by respondents. The party seeking to terminate the proceeding can invoke the summary screening process without first undertaking the ordinary procedural and evidentiary requirements of a Rule 20 or Rule 21 motion.

This changes the practical character of Rule 2.1. The rule is no longer confined to a process independently initiated by the court. It gives an opposing party a formal mechanism to ask the court to invoke that process against the proceeding.

Effect of the Automatic Stay

Rule 2.1.01(7) stays the proceeding and provides that no party may take any step other than those permitted by Rule 2.1, unless the court orders otherwise.

While the stay is in place, ordinary steps such as amendment under Rule 2.01, transfer, or discontinuance are not available as of right. Corrective action becomes dependent on obtaining the court’s permission within the summary process itself. The court may therefore assess the proceeding in the form it held when Form 2.1B was issued.

This creates a particular consequence when the Rule 2.1 process has been initiated at the request of an opposing party. The requesting party asks the court to consider whether the proceeding should be stayed or dismissed. If the court issues Form 2.1B, the plaintiff is then prevented from taking ordinary procedural steps to address the alleged deficiencies without first obtaining permission.

The requesting party has therefore been provided with access to a process that can place the opposing party in a restricted procedural position before the underlying issue has been finally determined. The plaintiff must respond to the court’s concerns while the proceeding is stayed and while ordinary procedural mechanisms for addressing defects are suspended.

Scope of Use

Rule 2.1 has been applied to a range of perceived defects, including some that could also be raised under Rule 21, such as questions of jurisdiction or prematurity. When used in that way, issues that might otherwise be determined on a full motion record and hearing can be addressed through the shorter, paper-based Rule 2.1 process.

Since its inception in 2014, the Rule 2.1 framework has included separate mechanisms for screening proceedings (Rule 2.1.01) and screening individual motions (Rule 2.1.02). The 2024 amendments did not expand this jurisdictional scope to introduce the screening of motions. Instead, they altered the initiation process by allowing parties to use the Form 2.1A request to trigger the screening of either a proceeding or a motion.

Rule 2.1.02 remains a separate screening mechanism directed at motions rather than proceedings. Subrule 2.1.02(2) imports much of the procedure in Rule 2.1.01, with necessary modifications, but expressly excludes the automatic stay and restriction on further steps found in Rule 2.1.01(7). Rule 2.1.02(3) also permits the court, when making an order staying or dismissing a motion, to prohibit the moving party from bringing further motions in the proceeding without leave under Rule 37.16.

The 2024 amendments therefore formalized a party’s ability to request the screening of both proceedings and motions, fundamentally shifting the rule from a court-initiated filter to an adversarial tool accessible to opposing parties.

Cost Immunity

Because a Form 2.1A request is not framed as a formal motion under Rule 20 or Rule 21, the ordinary procedural and evidentiary burdens associated with those motions do not necessarily apply in the same manner.

The costs consequences are governed by the court’s discretion under Rule 57.01 and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act. An unsuccessful request does not necessarily attract the same costs consequences as an unsuccessful conventional motion, although the court retains authority to award costs where appropriate.

The practical result is that a party may invoke the Rule 2.1 screening process without undertaking the same procedural work ordinarily required to bring a motion to strike or for summary judgment. The potential costs exposure is not necessarily equivalent to that associated with those conventional procedures.

The Limits of Delegated Authority

Section 66 of the Courts of Justice Act authorizes the Civil Rules Committee to make rules of practice and procedure, including rules that permit the disposition of proceedings without a hearing.

The 2024 amendments formalize a party’s ability to request that the court consider Rule 2.1 for both proceedings and motions.

The question is whether the combined operation of a party-initiated request, an automatic stay, a restriction on ordinary corrective steps, and a practical requirement that the plaintiff justify continuation remains within the authority delegated by section 66.

The distinction between a court-initiated screening process and a party-initiated request is significant. The original framework placed the decision to invoke Rule 2.1 with the court. The amended framework permits an opposing party to formally request that the court consider invoking the same summary process. The court retains the screening decision, but the procedural mechanism can now be activated at the request of a litigant who stands to benefit from the termination of the proceeding.

The Legislature has enacted an express summary screening regime with defined burden-shifting stages in section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. Rule 2.1 operates instead through delegated procedural rules. The difference in legislative form is relevant to the scope of the authority conferred by section 66. Section 137.1 establishes a legislated summary procedure with its own defined burden-shifting stages, whereas Rule 2.1 remains an exercise of delegated authority under section 66.

The issue is not whether the court possesses authority to prevent abuse of process. The issue is whether the delegated rule-making power authorizes the Committee to establish this particular combination of party-initiated screening, automatic suspension of proceedings, restrictions on corrective steps, and a summary process requiring the plaintiff to justify continuation.

The fact that the 2024 amendments were made by the Civil Rules Committee and approved by the Attorney General does not resolve the separate question of whether the provisions fall within the authority conferred by the Legislature under section 66.

The 2014 Framework and the 2024 Changes

The historical change to Form 2.1A is particularly important.

Under the original 2014 framework, Form 2.1A was the notice issued to a plaintiff after the court had independently determined that the proceeding might warrant a stay or dismissal. The form communicated the court’s decision to initiate the screening process.

Under the 2024 amendments, Form 2.1A became the instrument through which a party could ask the court to consider making that determination. The court still decides whether to issue Form 2.1B, but the process can now be initiated by a party to the proceeding.

The change is therefore not simply administrative. It alters who can formally seek access to the summary screening mechanism and the circumstances in which the court is asked to consider invoking it.

The original court-initiated process was presented as a limited administrative filter for proceedings that appeared on their face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The amended rule provides an opposing party with a formal route to request that the same process be used against the proceeding.

While the original 2014 procedure already included the court-initiated screening of motions (Rule 2.1.02), the 2024 amendments extended the new party-initiated Form 2.1A request to cover both proceedings and motions.

Conclusion

Rule 2.1 was introduced in 2014 as a court-initiated mechanism. Its stated purpose was to allow the court, on its own initiative, to stay or dismiss proceedings that appeared on their face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. Form 2.1A was then a notice issued by the court, not a request made by an opposing party.

The 2024 amendments altered that design. By authorizing the court to act on the request of a party and by repurposing Form 2.1A as a formal request, the rule now provides a route through which respondents can ask the court to initiate the same summary process. Once Form 2.1B issues, the proceeding is stayed, ordinary corrective steps are restricted, and the plaintiff must justify continuation within a short period. The requesting party does not assume the procedural and evidentiary burdens that accompany a conventional motion under Rule 20 or Rule 21.

The amendments also applied this party-initiated request mechanism to the screening of individual motions under Rule 2.1.02 (which expressly excludes the automatic stay found in Rule 2.1.01(7)).

The result is a shift from a court-initiated administrative filter toward a party-accessible summary procedure that can be wielded against both proceedings and motions. Whether that shift remains consistent with the original rationale for Rule 2.1, and whether the expanded procedure stays within the authority delegated by section 66 of the Courts of Justice Act, are open questions.

The 2024 amendments did not create Rule 2.1. They changed how the rule can be engaged, by whom, and the range of matters to which its summary screening procedures apply. The structural features described above—the practical allocation of the burden once Form 2.1B issues, the effect of the automatic stay on curative steps, the asymmetry in the incentives to use Form 2.1A, and the different procedural and costs exposure compared with ordinary motions—follow from the current text and operation of the amended rule.

* Correction (November 3, 2026): An earlier draft incorrectly stated that the mechanism for screening motions (Rule 2.1.02) was introduced by the 2024 amendments. Rule 2.1.02 was part of the original 2014 framework. The text has been corrected to reflect this statutory history.

Access the consolidated public records, dockets, and procedural analyses associated with this matter below.

Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)

• Formatted SCC Docket 42381
• Bulletin of Proceedings (Official)
• Official SCC Docket 42381

1. Case Overviews & Timelines

• Case Overview: Supreme Court of Canada Docket 42381, 2026 ONCA 246 and 2.1B (2025 ONCA 90)
• History of the Jurisdictional Defect in Chowdhury (2025 ONCA 90): Rule 2.1 Applied Twice
• Wrong-Forum and “Abuse of Process”: Amstar (2025 ONCA 493) and Bernard Property (2019 ONCA 830)
• “Or” vs. “Or Otherwise”: Scaduto (2015 ONCA 733), Raji (2015 ONSC 801), and the Language of Rule 2.1.01

2. Constitutional Limits & Delegated Authority

• Jurisprudence of the Administrative Reverse Onus: Rule 2.1 vs. Established Precedent
• Rule 2.1, Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and the Administrative Reverse Onus
• Rule 2.1 and the Automatic Stay: A Procedural Tension with Rule 2.01
• The Reverse Onus of Rule 2.1: The Practical Effect of the Automatic Stay in O. Reg. 322/24
• Form 2.1B and the Reverse Onus: Colourability and the Limits of Delegated Authority

4. Jurisdiction, Forum & Procedural Mechanics

• Rule 2.1.01 and Jurisdiction: Simpson (2016 ONCA 806), Collins (2017 ONCA 317) vs. Chowdhury
• Jurisdiction and the Initiation of Rule 2.1 Dismissals
• Rule 21.01 vs. Rule 2.1.01: "A Judge" vs. "The Court"
• Case Conference and Management: Scheduling as Adjudication (2.1B)
• Jurisdictional Contrast: Alberta, Quebec, and British Columbia
• Amstar (2025 ONCA 493) and Ingarra (2026 ONCA 139): When Jurisdiction Becomes "Frivolous"

5. Family Rule 1.4 & Rule 2.1

• Rule 1.4, Rule 2.1 and the Rules of Procedure: Can Ontario's Rules Committees Override the Common Law?
• O. Reg. 310/26 and Family Rule 1.4: The Shifting Framework of Summary Dismissals

Statutory References

• Appendix: Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Statutory Reference via Ontario e-Laws