Pouya/adr-sml
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: build step 5 — /practice/ and six area pages; check:claims gates §4 in dist
Build and deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Failing after 5s
Details

Browse Source 
Step 5 ships /practice/ and the six practice-area pages (construction,
technology, energy, insurance, shareholder, cross-border) from one route, and
adds the mechanical §4 gate Pouya ruled for.

check:claims — §4 Forbidden becomes a build error
  scripts/check-claims.mjs greps dist/**/*.html for 10 patterns, each carrying
  the incident that put it there. It strips <style> and non-JSON-LD <script>
  first (a bare sweep for "leading" returned 26 hits, 25 of them
  var(--leading-body)), self-tests every pattern against fixtures before
  sweeping, and refuses a missing, empty or stale dist/. Wired into /build
  Phase 5 and both deploy paths.

Q54 — six conduct undertakings publish, and §4 gains a third class
  Conduct undertakings sit apart from credentials and offerings: the gate is
  that Pouya said it in terms. The strings live in CONDUCT_UNDERTAKINGS so a
  softening is one visible diff. (e) and (f) replace the third-person sentences
  already on /arbitration/ rather than joining them.

Q49, Q50 recorded as rulings. §7 records the SES us-east-1 stray identity's
deletion. R11 holds typescript at its current major, with the peer-range
reason recorded.

Three facts corrected, two of them already shipped
  - The LAT gloss said mediation "before filing and continuing after filing";
    the Tribunal names mediation for "Before you apply" only and its second
    sentence is about negotiation. An ellipsis in docs/01 had deleted it.
  - "Connection allocation" is not an Ontario term.
  - "The 2026 privacy statute" does not exist — Bill C-27 died without royal
    assent. Struck from docs/03 rather than corrected in place.

ADR Chambers struck from /arbitration/ and from docs/01 item 3 (Pouya,
2026-08-30): the source establishes what the firm publishes, not that an
outside neutral can be appointed under its rules.

claims-auditor gains a second lens — for every quoted source, whether the
sentence beneath stays inside what the quotation establishes. Four shipped
defects had that shape and none of them is greppable.

CLAUDE.md gains a convention: never truncate the output of a check you intend
to believe. `npm run check | tail -3` returns warnings, hints and a blank line
and drops the errors line; it was reported as passing four times while
astro check was exiting 1 with 10 type errors.

Gates, exit status read directly, not through a pipe:
  npm run check        exit=0
  npm run lint         exit=0
  npm run build        exit=0
  npm run check:claims exit=0

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Md3GndFqWPzK78xAoebsg5
This commit is contained in:
Pouya Lajevardi
2026-08-30 09:35:26 -04:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent f3138a0a79
commit 79b19a7bd0
32 changed files with 6715 additions and 116 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/01-architecture.md
+57 -18
View File
@@ -235,14 +235,16 @@ an *agreement* settles, not what he promises.
1. What the service is; sole-arbitrator and party-appointed
appointments.
2. **Tracks:** documents-only, expedited, full hearing.
3. **Rules:** ADRIC, ADR Chambers, ad hoc.
⚠️ *`/arbitration/` as built names the **ADRIC Arbitration Rules** (new
edition effective 1 March 2025, with an arbitrator appointment protocol) and
"ad hoc, or whatever the contract names". It does **not** name ADR
Chambers*: nothing in `docs/reference/` sources what rules ADR Chambers
publishes, and `docs/07-fees.md` cites it only for published **fee ranges**,
which is a different claim (R14). Name it on the page once a source is
committed.
3. **Rules:** ADRIC, ad hoc. ✅ **Both are named on the page.**
⚠️ **ADR CHAMBERS WAS STRUCK FROM THIS ITEM AND FROM THE PAGE ON 2026-08-30
— Pouya's ruling, and do not reinstate it from an earlier reading of this
spec.** This item listed it as a third rule option for most of the project.
`docs/reference/adr-institution-names.md` sources what the firm *publishes*;
it does not source that an outside neutral can be appointed under those
rules, and the firm's own model clause reads *"at ADR Chambers"* — so naming
it here implied a relationship the repository does not establish. The ADRIC
edition date (1 March 2025) is published on the page because ADRIC publishes
one.
4. Awards — form, reasoning, timing.
5. **Credentialing status, stated plainly.** The Q.Arb pathway **commenced
August 2026**; the page says so in those words. *"In progress" was the
@@ -375,10 +377,32 @@ practice.
**Search intent:** `Bill 40 dispute`, `IESO dispute resolution`,
`OEB leave to construct dispute`, `grid connection dispute Ontario`.
Grid connection and allocation, leave-to-construct, proponent–municipality
disputes, IESO market participation, data-centre connection allocation. Brief
§III.2 frames this as a 24–36 month build. **Write it as a genuine position, not
a claim of existing volume.**
Connection assessment and approval, leave to construct, proponent–municipality
disputes, IESO market participation, and the large-load / data-centre connection
regime. Brief §III.2 frames this as a 24–36 month build. **Write it as a genuine
position, not a claim of existing volume.**
> ⚠️ **"CONNECTION ALLOCATION" WAS THIS SECTION'S WORDING AND IT IS NOT AN
> ONTARIO TERM. Corrected 2026-08-29**, against the IESO's own pages
> (`docs/reference/ontario-energy-regulatory.md`), which contain **zero**
> occurrences of "allocation" of any kind across the connection process. It also
> reached `src/data/site.ts` and shipped in the six-card grid on three pages.
>
> **Use the terms these bodies use:** *connection assessment and approval (CAA)*
> is the umbrella; the IESO performs a *System Impact Assessment (SIA)* and the
> transmitter a *Customer Impact Assessment (CIA)*. **Ontario has no
> interconnection queue** — the IESO says so in terms and works from "committed
> projects" instead, so "our place in the queue" describes nothing. The
> genuinely adjacent term, the OEB's *Capacity Allocation Model* in the
> Distribution System Code, is about housing-development connections and is a
> different thing.
>
> **Bill 40 is identified**, and the identification was not safe to assume: it
> is Bill 40 of the **44th Parliament, 1st Session — the Protect Ontario by
> Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, 2025**, Royal Assent
> 11 December 2025. Bill numbers are reused every parliament and most Ontario
> Bill 40s are unrelated to energy (43-1 is a highway-traffic bill). Cite the
> parliament and session, never the bare number.
### `/practice/insurance/`
@@ -403,16 +427,31 @@ a claim of existing volume.**
> - The LAT Rules contain **zero** occurrences of `mediat` or `arbitrat` —
> 0 in 66,593 characters. The concept is not in them.
> - The LAT-AABS page itself, though, says: *"Before you apply to the LAT-AABS,
> you may want to consider negotiation or mediation services… including before
> filing at the LAT-AABS, and continuing… after a claim has been filed."*
> **That is the affirmative basis for the offering, in the Tribunal's words.**
> you may want to consider negotiation or mediation services."*
> **That is the affirmative basis for the offering, in the Tribunal's words** —
> and it is the whole of it.
>
> ⚠️ **THE QUOTATION ABOVE WAS ELLIPSED, AND THE ELLIPSIS REMOVED THE WORD THAT
> SCOPED IT. Corrected 2026-08-29.** It read *"…consider negotiation or
> mediation services… including before filing at the LAT-AABS, and continuing…
> after a claim has been filed."* The Tribunal's second sentence is
> *"Parties are encouraged to attempt to **negotiate** the claim at all times,
> including before filing at the LAT-AABS, and continuing **negotiation**
> discussions after a claim has been filed."* — **negotiation, twice.** The
> second ellipsis deleted the second "negotiation" and made a sentence about
> negotiation read as one about mediation. The full passage is quoted verbatim
> in `docs/reference/lat-case-conference.md`, which now carries the correction
> and the reason it survived three checks.
>
> **The page must state that the mediation offered is PRIVATE, retained by the
> parties, and is not the Tribunal's case conference.** Published blurb:
> *"Accident benefits and SABS entitlement, MIG disputes, and private mediation
> alongside a LAT application, before filing or after."* If Pouya holds a roster
> position that makes more than that true, it is a §4 addition — absent a row,
> it is not.
> retained by the parties, not the Tribunal's case conference."* **Do not
> restore the "before filing or after" form** — it rested on the elided half.
> The page may quote the Tribunal's actual sentence, which supports mediation
> **before an application**; it may not attribute the after-filing frame to the
> Tribunal. If Pouya holds a roster position that makes more than that true, it
> is a §4 addition — absent a row, it is not.
Highest realistic near-term volume — it flows directly from the existing
personal-injury and SABS work, and brief §IV.7 notes the segment is
docs/03-content-spec.md
+32 -2
View File
@@ -295,8 +295,38 @@ Meeting the strongest objection is what makes the page worth reading.
### Practice areas
Each page: dispute types, why this practice fits, what the process looks like,
and the market context that makes the area live. Context comes from the strategy
brief §III–IV — Ontario's megaproject pipeline, Bill 40 and grid connection, the
2026 privacy statute, LAT volumes.
brief §III–IV — Ontario's megaproject pipeline, Bill 40 and grid connection,
~~the 2026 privacy statute~~, LAT volumes.
> ⚠️ **"THE 2026 PRIVACY STATUTE" DOES NOT EXIST. Struck rather than corrected
> in place, so the phrase is not re-invented. Checked 2026-08-29; sourced in
> `docs/reference/canada-privacy-technology.md`.**
>
> **Nothing enacted federally or in Ontario in 2025 or 2026 is a privacy
> statute.** Bill C-27 — which would have enacted the Consumer Privacy
> Protection Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act — **died without
> royal assent** when the 44th Parliament's first session ended, and was never
> reinstated. **PIPEDA remains the operative federal private-sector statute**,
> and **Canada has no federal AI statute.** The nearest real thing is federal
> **Bill C-36 (45-1)**, introduced 15 June 2026, which *would* enact the
> Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act — a bill, at second reading, not law.
>
> **Caught before it reached a page, and only because the phrase was checked
> rather than trusted.** Same failure mode as `docs/01`'s "Model Mediation
> Rules" and the LAT gloss corrected the same day: a spec naming an instrument
> from recall, and an implementer with no reason to doubt it. **Bill 40 in the
> same sentence turned out to be real** — Bill 40 of the 44th Parliament, 1st
> Session, the *Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations
> Act, 2025* — but the number alone did not establish that, because bill numbers
> are reused every parliament. Cite the parliament and session.
>
> **What `/practice/technology/` publishes instead** is the real position, and
> it is better copy than the invented one: what is in force, what died, what is
> only a bill — and the genuinely useful part for a commercial audience, that
> **no Canadian statute requires personal data to be stored in Canada.** That is
> the assumption a great many data-residency clauses are drafted against, and it
> is quoted from the Privacy Commissioner's own guidance rather than concluded
> here.
**Frame as positioning, not as history.** "Built to facilitate procurement and
subcontract disputes on Ontario's megaproject pipeline" — not "extensive
docs/04-seo-spec.md
+1 -1
View File
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ JSON-LD only. Validate against Google's Rich Results Test before cutover.
| Type | Where | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| `Person` | `/about/`, referenced site-wide | **Emitted:** `name`, `url`, `jobTitle`, `description`, `alumniOf` (Bond University), `knowsLanguage` (en, fa), `hasCredential` (Q.Med), `sameAs` (LinkedIn), `email`, `image`. **Emitted on `/about/` only:** `memberOf` — the four §4 memberships as `Organization` nodes (Q53, ruled 2026-08-28). `/` shows no memberships, so its Person node omits it: structured data represents the page it sits on. **Withheld:** `worksFor` — Q49(b) declined the row 2026-08-28; `provider → Person → worksFor` would assert a same-entity claim §4 does not row. *(This enumeration listed `worksFor` as emitted while the same cell said it was withheld, and omitted `url` and `email`, which are — wrong in both directions. The enumeration is the part an implementer copies. Found by `adversarial-reviewer`.)* **CHANGED 2026-08-28 — Q47.** This row read *"`jobTitle` = 'Director of Firm Operations'; omit `worksFor`"*, which put the boutique title on a node whose `url` is this ADR practice's `/about/` — so a consumer could attach it to this entity. Pouya's ruling reframes the field: `jobTitle` describes **this practice**, not the boutique role, which D16 keeps unnamed. The visible role line is unchanged and still reads "Director of Firm Operations at a Toronto litigation and ADR boutique". **THE VALUE IS `PRACTICE_JOB_TITLE` IN `src/data/site.ts` AND THIS ROW DOES NOT RESTATE IT** — §7's rule, applied to a string with a live revert trigger on it: this row carried the literal text for one pass, and `adversarial-reviewer` noted it would go stale the moment the constant moved. Cite, do not copy. **`worksFor` IS WITHHELD** — set for one pass under Q47, then reverted: `ProfessionalService.provider` is this Person, so `provider → Person → worksFor` asserts the same-entity claim `schema.ts` explicitly declines, and §4 says "alongside the practice" where the ruling says "operates through". **`memberOf` is emitted** — see the sentence above; Q53 closed 2026-08-28. *(This cell asserted `memberOf` was both emitted and withheld for one pass, which is the defect it already records itself being caught for on `worksFor`, in the opposite direction. The enumeration is the part an implementer copies.)* See `src/data/schema.ts` |
| `Person` | `/about/`, referenced site-wide | **Emitted:** `name`, `url`, `jobTitle`, `description`, `alumniOf` (Bond University), `knowsLanguage` (en, fa), `hasCredential` (Q.Med), `sameAs` (LinkedIn), `email`, `image`. **Emitted on `/about/` only:** `memberOf` — the four §4 memberships as `Organization` nodes (Q53, ruled 2026-08-28). `/` shows no memberships, so its Person node omits it: structured data represents the page it sits on. **Withheld:** `worksFor` — Q49(b) declined the row 2026-08-28 and Pouya confirmed the reading 2026-08-29, so it is settled rather than pending; `provider → Person → worksFor` would assert a same-entity claim §4 does not row. *(This enumeration listed `worksFor` as emitted while the same cell said it was withheld, and omitted `url` and `email`, which are — wrong in both directions. The enumeration is the part an implementer copies. Found by `adversarial-reviewer`.)* **CHANGED 2026-08-28 — Q47.** This row read *"`jobTitle` = 'Director of Firm Operations'; omit `worksFor`"*, which put the boutique title on a node whose `url` is this ADR practice's `/about/` — so a consumer could attach it to this entity. Pouya's ruling reframes the field: `jobTitle` describes **this practice**, not the boutique role, which D16 keeps unnamed. The visible role line is unchanged and still reads "Director of Firm Operations at a Toronto litigation and ADR boutique". **THE VALUE IS `PRACTICE_JOB_TITLE` IN `src/data/site.ts` AND THIS ROW DOES NOT RESTATE IT** — §7's rule, applied to a string with a live revert trigger on it: this row carried the literal text for one pass, and `adversarial-reviewer` noted it would go stale the moment the constant moved. Cite, do not copy. **`worksFor` IS WITHHELD** — set for one pass under Q47, then reverted: `ProfessionalService.provider` is this Person, so `provider → Person → worksFor` asserts the same-entity claim `schema.ts` explicitly declines, and §4 says "alongside the practice" where the ruling says "operates through". **`memberOf` is emitted** — see the sentence above; Q53 closed 2026-08-28. *(This cell asserted `memberOf` was both emitted and withheld for one pass, which is the defect it already records itself being caught for on `worksFor`, in the opposite direction. The enumeration is the part an implementer copies.)* See `src/data/schema.ts` |
| `ProfessionalService` | Home | `areaServed` Toronto/Ontario, `serviceType` **Mediation / Commercial arbitration / Mediation-arbitration (med-arb)** — *scoped 2026-08-28 on `claims-auditor`'s finding; this row instructed the unscoped class form "Mediation/Arbitration" that Q39 struck and that `schema.ts` deliberately does not follow. Family arbitration carries prescribed training and has its own NOT OFFERED row, so unscoped "Arbitration" is the struck universal in a field nobody reads. Do not widen these strings without a §4 row to widen them from* — `provider` → Person, `priceRange` once `/fees/` is real. **Never `LegalService`** — schema.org defines it as a business providing legal advice and *representation*, which asserts in machine-readable form exactly what D13 bars and §4 Forbidden calls out |
| `Service` | **`/mediation/`, `/arbitration/`, `/med-arb/`** and each practice page | `serviceType`, `provider` → Person, `areaServed`. **The Person node travels in the same `@graph`** so `provider: {'@id'}` resolves in one document rather than relying on a crawler joining two — `homeGraph`'s reasoning, applied. `serviceType` is scoped where §4 scopes it: *Commercial arbitration*, never a bare "Arbitration". No `BreadcrumbList` on the three — one hop from the root, no visible breadcrumb, and this spec requires the markup to match the visible one |
| `Article` | Each article | `headline`, `description`, `datePublished`, `dateModified`, `author` → Person, `image` |
docs/reference/adr-institution-names.md
+874
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,874 @@
# The exact published names of ADRIC, ADRIO and ADR Chambers rule sets, designations and codes
Committed under AGENTS.md R14 and the CLAUDE.md rule it encodes: **anything a
spec makes a claim about must be reachable from the repository.** Every fact
the six `/practice/*` pages state about the world is checkable here or it is
not published.
**Retrieved 2026-08-29.** Fetched from the primary sources listed below and
extracted with quotations pasted verbatim. This file is the artefact; the pages
cite it. Do not paraphrase a fact into a page that is not stated here.
> ⚠️ **A statute, a regulation and a tribunal page all move.** Every consolidation
> date and effective date below is as at the retrieval date and nothing more.
> Re-check before cutover, and before any republish that turns on one of them.
**Topic as researched:** The Canadian ADR institutions this practice names, and the exact form of their names — ADRIC / ADRIO rule sets, designations, codes; ADR Chambers; early neutral evaluation and dispute-system design
---
## Sources
| Kind | Source | URL |
|---|---|---|
| institution | Rules & Codes - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/> |
| institution | National Mediation Rules - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/national-mediation-rules/> |
| institution | ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. — National Mediation Rules (PDF linked from the National Mediation Rules page) | <https://adric.ca/pdf/ADRMEDIATIONRULES2014.pdf> |
| institution | ADRIC Arbitration Rules - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/arbrules/> |
| institution | ADRIC ARBITRATION RULES — Effective 01 March 2025 (PDF, 42 pp.) | <https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Rules-2025.pdf> |
| institution | ADRIC ARBITRATOR APPOINTMENT PROTOCOL — Effective 01 March 2025 (PDF) | <https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Protocol-2025.pdf> |
| institution | ADRIC Med-Arb Rules - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/adric-med-arb-rules/> |
| institution | ADRIC Med-Arb Rules (PDF, 8.5 x 11 format) | <https://adric.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ADRIC_Med_Arb_Rules_2020_8_5-X-11-p.-1.pdf> |
| institution | Code of Conduct - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-conduct/> |
| institution | Code of Ethics - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-ethics/> |
| institution | Ethics & Professional Practice - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/ethics-professional-practice/> |
| institution | Professional Designations - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/> |
| institution | Chartered Med-Arb - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/chartered-med-arb/> |
| institution | Arbitrator Designations - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/arbitrator-designations/> |
| institution | Mediator Designations - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/mediator-designations/> |
| institution | Services - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/services/> |
| institution | Custom ADR Systems and Roster Development - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/services/custom-adr-systems-rosters/> |
| institution | ADRIC Professional Practice Manuals - ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/adric-professional-practice-manuals/> |
| institution | ADRIC Sponsored Professional Liability Insurance Program brochure (PDF, PDF creation date 2016) | <https://adric.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ADR-Brochure-EN-final.pdf> |
| institution | Professional Designations – The ADR Institute of Ontario | <https://adr-ontario.ca/professional-designations/> |
| institution | Chartered Med-Arbitrator (C.Med-Arb) – The ADR Institute of Ontario | <https://adr-ontario.ca/chartered-med-arbitrator-c-med-arb/> |
| institution | Qualified Mediator (Q.Med) & Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb) – The ADR Institute of Ontario | <https://adr-ontario.ca/qualified-mediator-q-med-qualified-arbitrator-q-arb/> |
| institution | Rules & Codes – The ADR Institute of Ontario | <https://adr-ontario.ca/rules-codes/> |
| institution | Code of Ethics – The ADR Institute of Ontario | <https://adr-ontario.ca/code-of-ethics/> |
| proponent | About ADR Chambers — Trusted ADR Experts in Canada | <https://adrchambers.com/about-adr-chambers/> |
| proponent | Arbitration rules - ADR Chambers | <https://adrchambers.com/arbitration/rules/> |
| proponent | ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules — current version PDF (Revised February 10, 2026) | <https://adrchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Revised-ADRC-Arbitration-Rules-Feb-10-2026.pdf> |
| proponent | Mediation Rules - ADR Chambers | <https://adrchambers.com/mediation/rules/> |
| proponent | ADR Chambers Mediation Rules (PDF) | <https://adrchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Mediation-Rules.pdf> |
| proponent | ADR Chambers Expedited Arbitration Rules and Efficiency | <https://adrchambers.com/expedited-arbitration/rules/> |
| proponent | ADR Chambers Expedited Arbitration Rules (PDF, revised April 2026) | <https://adrchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ADRC-Expedited-Arbitration-Rules-Revised-April-2026.pdf> |
| proponent | Mediation Model Clauses - ADR Chambers | <https://adrchambers.com/mediation-model-clause/> |
| proponent | ADR Chambers Neutral Evaluation – Expert Case Assessment | <https://adrchambers.com/neutral-evaluation/> |
| proponent | ADR Systems Design - ADR Chambers | <https://adrchambers.com/adr-systems-design/> |
| proponent | ADR Chambers International – International Arbitration and Mediation | <https://adrchambersinternational.com/> |
---
## Verbatim quotations
### Rules & Codes - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/rules-codes/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Rules & Codes - ADR Institute of Canada
> ADRIC By-laws
> Federation MoU
> ADRIC Arbitration Rules
> National Mediation Rules
> ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
> Ethics & Professional Practice
> Code of Ethics
> Code of Conduct
> Conflict of Interest
> Complaints & Discipline Policy
> Privacy Policy
> Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision
> ADRIC By-Laws
> Learn More
> Federation MoU
> Learn More
> ADRIC Arbitration Rules
> Learn More
> ADRIC Mediation Rules
> Learn More
> ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
> Learn More
> <h2 style="color: #FFFFFF;text-align: center;font-family:Montserrat;font-weight:400;font-style:normal" class="vc_custom_heading">ADRIC Mediation Rules</h2>
> Chartered Med-Arbitrator
> ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. 705-130 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON K1P5G4 1-877-475-4353 info@adric.ca
### National Mediation Rules - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/rules-codes/national-mediation-rules/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>National Mediation Rules - ADR Institute of Canada</title>
> <h1><strong>The ADRIC National Mediation Rules</strong></h1>
> The National Mediation Rules provide rules for initiating mediations, including the appointment of a mediator should the parties be unable to come to an agreement.
> The National Mediation Rules document contains the following:
> Mediation Rules including Code of Conduct
> Standard Form Agreement to Mediate (Schedule B)
> Administration fees payable to the ADR Institute of Canada- see Schedule A of the Rules
> All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement, or in respect of any legal relationship associated with or derived from this agreement, shall be mediated pursuant to the National Mediation Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc.
> Important Update on the ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC) National Mediation Rules: As of 2025, the ADRIC Mediation Committee is currently reviewing the Mediation Rules to ensure they remain current, practical, and aligned with best practices in the field. In the meantime, the existing rules remain in effect and should continue to be used until any updates are formally adopted.
> Commercial contracts drafted by law firms of all sizes across Canada commonly contain a clause indicating that any dispute that arises with respect to the contract will be administered by ADR Canada, or one of its affiliates, pursuant to the National Mediation Rules or the ADRIC Arbitration Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada.
### ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. — National Mediation Rules (PDF linked from the National Mediation Rules page)
<https://adric.ca/pdf/ADRMEDIATIONRULES2014.pdf> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ADR INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC.
> NATIONAL MEDIATION RULES
> ADR INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC.
> CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEDIATORS
> ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. © As amended August 3, 2012
> (g) "Rules" means the National Mediation Rules of the Institute.
> Parties who agree to mediate under the National Mediation Rules may use the following clause in their agreement:
### ADRIC Arbitration Rules - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/rules-codes/arbrules/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>ADRIC Arbitration Rules - ADR Institute of Canada</title>
> <h1><strong>The ADRIC Arbitration Rules</strong></h1>
> ADRIC has adopted new Arbitration Rules and a new Arbitrator Appointment Protocol, effective March 1, 2025. This modernization effort aims to support both domestic and international arbitration with up-to-date procedures and streamlined institutional support. The ADRIC Arbitration Rules have been the leading choice for Canadian businesses since 2002.
> ADRIC Arbitration Rules – Effective 2025
> ADRIC Arbitrator Appointment Protocol
> All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement, or in relation to any legal relationship associated with or derived from this agreement, will be resolved by final and binding arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. [or the Simplified Arbitration Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc.] The Seat of Arbitration will be [specify]. The language of the arbitration will be [specify].
> — Comment by William G. Horton, C.Arb, co-chair and discussion leader of the ADRIC Modernization Committee that drafted the new Arbitration Rules.
### ADRIC ARBITRATION RULES — Effective 01 March 2025 (PDF, 42 pp.)
<https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Rules-2025.pdf> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ADRIC
> ARBITRATION RULES
> Effective 01 March 2025
> ADR INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC.
>
> ARBITRATION RULES
> IV. CURRENT VERSION OF THE RULES AND UPDATES
> Go to https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Rules-2025.pdf for the most current version of the Rules.
> 6.2 EXPEDITED/SIMPLIFIED ARBITRATION PROCEDURE ............................................................................... 19
> 6.2.1 If the parties agree in writing or the Tribunal orders, the arbitration will follow the Expedited/Simplified
### ADRIC ARBITRATOR APPOINTMENT PROTOCOL — Effective 01 March 2025 (PDF)
<https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Protocol-2025.pdf> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ADRIC
> ARBITRATOR APPOINTMENT PROTOCOL
>
> Effective 01 March 2025
> Revised: 2026-01-30
> ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC)
>
> ADRIC Arbitrator Appointment Protocol
> ADRIC makes arbitrator appointments ("Direct Appointments") and generates lists of candidates for appointment by the parties ("Candidate Lists") in accordance with the ADRIC Arbitration Rules (the "Rules")
> At least three members must have an ADRIC Chartered Arbitrator designation.
### ADRIC Med-Arb Rules - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/rules-codes/adric-med-arb-rules/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>ADRIC Med-Arb Rules - ADR Institute of Canada</title>
> <h1><strong>The ADRIC Med-Arb Rules</strong></h1>
> The Rules are designed to work in tandem with ADRIC's existing Mediation Rules and Arbitration Rules, integrating seamlessly.
> Download the ADRIC Med-Arb Rules:
> Booklet format
> 8.5 x 11 format
> Designation : We have also developed criteria for a specialized designation: the Chartered Med-Arb
> Course : We have worked with course designers to develop the Med-Arb Foundational Course.
> All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement, or in respect of any legal relationship associated with or derived from this agreement, will be finally resolved by Med-Arb under the Med-Arb Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. The Seat of Arbitration under the ADRIC Arbitration Rules will be [specify]. The language of the Med-Arb will be [specify].
### ADRIC Med-Arb Rules (PDF, 8.5 x 11 format)
<https://adric.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ADRIC_Med_Arb_Rules_2020_8_5-X-11-p.-1.pdf> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
> MED-ARB
> RULES
> ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
> Published by the ADR Institute of Canada
> Version 1 - 1 June 2020
> You are welcome to use and modify these Rules.
> We request that ADRIC be acknowledged.
> THE ADRIC MED-ARB RULES
> ADRIC is pleased to have the ADRIC Med-Arb Rules take their place alongside ADRIC's other flagship ADR rules.
> ADRIC's Rules are state of the art; Canada's first and foremost for the Canadian jurisdiction. The ADRIC Arbitration Rules (which include expedited arbitration), Mediation Rules and Med-Arb Rules: designed to integrate seamlessly.
> ADRIC also provides dispute resolution services such as ADR systems design, roster development, education, training and certification, and issues publications for practitioners, parties and counsel.
### Code of Conduct - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-conduct/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>Code of Conduct - ADR Institute of Canada</title>
> ADRIC members are held accountable to practice standards that include a Code of Conduct for Mediators and a National Code of Ethics. In effect, ADRIC provides an infrastructure that allows ADR practitioners to be self-regulating professionals.
> To view the Code of Conduct for Mediators in booklet form, please click here .
> CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEDIATORS
> This Code of Conduct for Mediators (the "Code") applies in its entirety to every Mediator who is a member of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. (the "Institute") or any of its Regional Affiliates, or who accepts from the Institute an appointment as Mediator.
> 12.1 Nothing in the Code replaces or supersedes any other ethical standard or code that may govern the Mediator.
### Code of Ethics - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-ethics/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>Code of Ethics - ADR Institute of Canada</title>
> This code is applicable to all members of the ADR Institute of Canada.
> A member shall uphold and abide by the Code of Ethics, the Code of Conduct for Mediators, the regulations, and other professional requirements adopted by the ADR Institute of Canada.
> A Member shall uphold the integrity and fairness of the arbitration and mediation processes.
> A Member shall be faithful to the relationship of trust and confidentiality inherent in the office of arbitrator or mediator.
### Ethics & Professional Practice - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/ethics-professional-practice/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Code of Ethics
> Learn More
> Code of Conduct
> Learn More
> Conflict of Interest
> Learn More
> Complaints & Discipline Policy
> Learn More
> ADR Institute of Canada members are held accountable to practice standards that include a Mediator's Code of Conduct and a National Code of Ethics.
> Complaints about members who breach the standards set out in these documents can be brought to the attention of the Board of Directors of the affiliate or national for investigation and potential discipline as per the procedure set out in Regulations issued under the By-laws of the ADR Institute of Canada, or by disciplinary processes set by the affiliate.
### Professional Designations - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/professional-designations/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Entry-level <em>Qualified</em> Designations</strong></p>
> <ul>
> <li><a href="https://adric.ca/professional-designations/arbitrator-designations/">Qualified Arbitrator &#8211; Q.Arb</a></li>
> <li><a href="https://adric.ca/professional-designations/mediator-designations/">Qualified Mediator &#8211; Q.Med</a></li>
> </ul>
> <p><strong>Senior-level <em>Chartered</em> Designations</strong></p>
> <ul>
> <li><a href="https://adric.ca/professional-designations/arbitrator-designations/">Chartered Arbitrator &#8211; C.Arb</a></li>
> <li><a href="https://adric.ca/professional-designations/mediator-designations/">Chartered Mediator &#8211; C.Med</a></li>
> <li><a href="https://adric.ca/professional-designations/chartered-med-arb/">Chartered Med-Arbitrator &#8211; C.Med-Arb</a></li>
> </ul>
> Mediators , Arbitrators and Med-Arbitrators
> Entry-level Qualified Designations
> Qualified Arbitrator – Q.Arb
> Qualified Mediator – Q.Med
> Senior-level Chartered Designations
> Chartered Arbitrator – C.Arb
> Chartered Mediator – C.Med
> Chartered Med-Arbitrator – C.Med-Arb
> Specialized Designations:
> Family Practice Designations (available in some regions – check with your affiliate)
> Qualified Arbitrator (Family) – Q.Arb(Fam) – coming soon
> Qualified Mediator (Family) – Q.Med(Fam)
> Chartered Arbitrator – C.Arb (Family) – C.Arb(Fam) – coming soon
> Chartered Mediator – C.Med (Family) – C.Med(Fam) – coming soon
> Construction Adjudication Designations
> Qualified Construction Adjudicator – Q.Adj (Const)
> Generalist Designations
> C.Arb or C.Med
> $ 280.00
> C.Arb and C.Med
> $ 420.00
> C.Med-Arb
> $ 420.00
> Q.Arb, Q.Med or Q.Adj (Const)
> $ 165.00
### Chartered Med-Arb - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/professional-designations/chartered-med-arb/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>Chartered Med-Arb - ADR Institute of Canada</title>
> <h3><strong>ADRIC Chartered Med-Arb Designation (C.Med-Arb)<br />
> </strong></h3>
> <a href="https://adric.ca/professional-designations/chartered-med-arb/">Chartered Med-Arbitrator</a>
> Chartered Med-Arb Criteria
> Chartered Med-Arb application form
> The ADRIC Med-Arb designation is unique in the ADR world and provides clearly defined criteria for those practitioners who wish to obtain it.
### Arbitrator Designations - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/professional-designations/arbitrator-designations/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>Arbitrator Designations - ADR Institute of Canada</title>
> Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb)
> The Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb) designation is an entry-level designation for arbitrators while they continue to learn and practice for the Chartered Arbitration designation. It recognizes member applicants who have completed an ADRIC-Accredited 40 hour arbitration training that includes a written exam.
> Chartered Arbitrator (C.Arb)
> Assessment Criteria
> The Chartered Arbitrator (C.Arb) designation recognizes competence at a high level.
> The C.Arb or Chartered Arbitrator designation is Canada's only official senior designation for experienced, practicing Arbitrators.
> ADR Institute of British Columbia (ADRBC)
> ADR Institute of Alberta (ADRIA)
> ADR Institute of Saskatchewan Inc. (ADRISK)
> ADR Institute of Manitoba (ADRIM)
> ADR Institute of Ontario, Inc. (ADRIO)
> L'Institut de médiation et d'arbitrage du Québec (IMAQ)
> ADR Atlantic Institute (ADRAI)
### Mediator Designations - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/professional-designations/mediator-designations/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>Mediator Designations - ADR Institute of Canada</title>
> <h1><strong>ADRIC&#8217;s National Designations for Mediators</strong></h1>
> Qualified Mediator (Q.Med)
> The Qualified Mediator designation is an entry-level step for mediators while they continue to learn and practice for the Chartered Mediator designation. It is available to members who have completed at least 80 hours of mediation and related dispute resolution training and have some practice experience.
> Chartered Mediator (C.Med)
> Assessment Criteria
> T he Chartered Mediator (C.Med) designation recognizes competence at a high level .
> The C.Med or Chartered Mediator designation is Canada's most senior designation for mediators with a general or special practice.
### Services - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/services/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ADRIC's Rules are state of the art; Canada's first and foremost for the Canadian jurisdiction. The ADRIC Arbitration Rules , Mediation Rules and the Med-Arb Rules are designed to integrate seamlessly.
> ADRIC also provides dispute resolution services such as ADR systems design, roster development, training and certification , and issues publications for practitioners, parties and counsel.
> Construction Adjudication
> Learn More
> CTA Arbitrator Roster
> Learn more
> Arbitrator Appointments
> Learn More
> Mediator Appointments
> Learn More
> ADRIC Med-Arb Rules Case Administration Services
> Learn more
> Custom ADR Systems and Roster Development
> Learn More
> In-House Designations
> Learn More
### Custom ADR Systems and Roster Development - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/services/custom-adr-systems-rosters/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Custom ADR Systems and Roster Development
> ADRIC can assist organizations of all kinds to develop and administer ADR programs designed to resolve disputes between various parties.
> Option 1: Custom ADR Systems and Rosters Development
> ADRIC assists organizations in developing and administering practical and efficient dispute resolution programs.
> Option 2: Roster Selection Services
> Option 3: Roster Management Services
### ADRIC Professional Practice Manuals - ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/adric-professional-practice-manuals/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> The ADRIC Arbitration Practice Handbook
> The ADRIC Commercial Mediation Practice Handbook
> The Mediation Handbook is designed to function as a guide for professionals working in the field of commercial mediation.
### ADRIC Sponsored Professional Liability Insurance Program brochure (PDF, PDF creation date 2016)
<https://adric.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ADR-Brochure-EN-final.pdf> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> •• Early Neutral Evaluation
> •• ADR Systems Design / Implementation and/or
> Management
> •• Pre-ADR Processes (assisting the parties to
> select an appropriate ADR process)
> THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS ONLY A GENERAL OUTLINE OF COVERAGES AVAILABLE. FOR EXACT TERMS, DEFINITIONS,
> LIMITATIONS, AND EXCLUSIONS, PLEASE SPEAK WITH YOUR LICENSED MARSH CANADA BROKER, OR REFER TO THE POLICY WORDING.
### Professional Designations – The ADR Institute of Ontario
<https://adr-ontario.ca/professional-designations/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>Professional Designations &#8211; The ADR Institute of Ontario</title>
> Designations
> The Path to your Professional ADR designation
> ADRIC Accredited Courses
> Qualified Mediator (Q.Med) & Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb)
> Chartered Mediator (C.Med)
> Chartered Arbitrator (C.Arb)
> Chartered Med-Arbitrator (C.Med-Arb)
> Insurance
> FAQ
> Professional Designations
> To read more about the path to designations, click here .
### Chartered Med-Arbitrator (C.Med-Arb) – The ADR Institute of Ontario
<https://adr-ontario.ca/chartered-med-arbitrator-c-med-arb/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>Chartered Med-Arbitrator (C.Med-Arb) &#8211; The ADR Institute of Ontario</title>
> <h1 class="page-title"><span>Chartered Med-Arbitrator (C.Med-Arb)</span></h1>
> Med-Arb is a distinct, innovative standalone process that is not as well known or understood by consumers of ADR services compared to mediation and arbitration.
> To read more about the C.Med-Arb designation, including how to apply, click here .
### Qualified Mediator (Q.Med) & Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb) – The ADR Institute of Ontario
<https://adr-ontario.ca/qualified-mediator-q-med-qualified-arbitrator-q-arb/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <h1 class="page-title"><span>Qualified Mediator (Q.Med) &#038; Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb)</span></h1>
> Qualified Mediator (Q.Med) / Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb)
> These designations are to recognize practitioners who have completed sufficient mediation / arbitration and related dispute resolution training to be qualified to practice. They are an intermediate step for practitioners working to receive their Chartered designation.
> *Q.Med criteria vary across affiliates. For the criteria specific to Ontario, be sure to read the checklist on the application form.
### Rules & Codes – The ADR Institute of Ontario
<https://adr-ontario.ca/rules-codes/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>Rules &#038; Codes &#8211; The ADR Institute of Ontario</title>
> Rules & Codes
> Code of Ethics
> View Code of Ethics.
> Code of Conduct
> View Code of Conduct.
> Complaints Policy
> ...
> ADRIC Arbitration Rules
> View ADRIC Arbitration Rules.
> National Mediation Rules
> View Selection Protocols.
> ADRIO's Statement Re: Zero Tolerance for Unacceptable Behaviour
> ...
> ADRIO Policy Statement on Conduct & Communication
> Code of Ethics</h2>
> <p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://adr-ontario.ca/code-of-ethics/">View Code of Ethics.</a></p>
> <h2 ...>Code of Conduct</h2>
> <p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-conduct/">View Code of Conduct.</a></p>
> <h2 ...>ADRIC Arbitration Rules</h2>
> <p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://adric.ca/rules-codes/arbrules/">View ADRIC Arbitration Rules.</a></p>
> <h2 ...>National Mediation Rules</h2>
> <p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://adric.ca/rules-codes/national-mediation-rules/" data-type="URL" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">View Selection Protocols.</a></p>
### Code of Ethics – The ADR Institute of Ontario
<https://adr-ontario.ca/code-of-ethics/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>Code of Ethics &#8211; The ADR Institute of Ontario</title>
> <h1 class="page-title"><span>Code of Ethics</span></h1>
> Code of Ethics
> The Code is applicable to all members of the Institute.
> A Member shall uphold and abide by the Rules of Conduct, regulations and other professional requirements adopted by the Institute.
> A Member shall uphold the integrity and fairness of the arbitration and mediation processes.
### About ADR Chambers — Trusted ADR Experts in Canada
<https://adrchambers.com/about-adr-chambers/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <h1>About ADR Chambers — Trusted ADR Experts in Canada</h1>
> For more than 30 years, ADR Chambers, the renowned arbitration mediation firm, has provided conflict resolution services across Canada and internationally.
> ADR Chambers' dispute resolution services include mediation , arbitration , ombuds services , workplace investigations , neutral evaluation , med/arb , fairness monitoring , workplace restoration , private appeals and independent assessment of workplace accommodation requests .
> The world's largest dispute resolution service provider *
> * Over the past 15 years, ADR Chambers has administered over 55,000 mediations and arbitrations through their reputable arbitration mediation firm.
### Arbitration rules - ADR Chambers
<https://adrchambers.com/arbitration/rules/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>Arbitration rules - ADR Chambers</title>
> <h1>Arbitration Rules</h1>
> Download current Arbitration Rules (PDF).
> Download previous version of Rules : June 3, 2025 – February 9, 2026
> Download previous version of Rules : June 1, 2024 to June 2, 2025
> Download previous version of Rules : September 10, 2013 to May 31, 2024
> "ADR Chambers" means ADR Chambers Inc.
> "Rules" means the ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules in force at the time of the commencement of the arbitration.
> "Med-Arb" means a process by which the Parties agree to first submit their dispute to mediation and, in the event that the dispute does not fully settle at mediation, to an arbitration in accordance with these Rules, where the arbitrator will be the same individual as the mediator.
> 2.6 These Rules may be amended by ADR Chambers in its sole discretion. Amendments become effective when they are posted to the ADR Chambers website.
### ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules — current version PDF (Revised February 10, 2026)
<https://adrchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Revised-ADRC-Arbitration-Rules-Feb-10-2026.pdf> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> 14. "Rules" means the ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules in force at the time of the
> These Rules are Effective February 10, 2026 and are Subject to Change Without Notice.
> In accordance with Rule 10.1 of the ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules, a preliminary
> 12. Mediation
> 13. Med/Arb
### Mediation Rules - ADR Chambers
<https://adrchambers.com/mediation/rules/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>Mediation Rules - ADR Chambers</title>
> <h1>Mediation Rules</h1>
> Download Mediation Rules (PDF).
> 1.1 These Rules, and all amendments to them, shall be deemed to have been made a part of any agreement which provides for mediation with ADR Chambers.
> Appendix A: Sample Agreement to Mediate
### ADR Chambers Mediation Rules (PDF)
<https://adrchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Mediation-Rules.pdf> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ADR Chambers Mediation Rules
> 1. Agreement of Parties
> 1.1 These Rules, and all amendments to them, shall be deemed to have been made a part
> of any agreement which provides for mediation with ADR Chambers.
### ADR Chambers Expedited Arbitration Rules and Efficiency
<https://adrchambers.com/expedited-arbitration/rules/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>ADR Chambers Expedited Arbitration Rules and Efficiency</title>
> <h1>Expedited Arbitration Rules</h1>
> Download Expedited Arbitration Rules (PDF).
> Download previous version of Rules : March 29, 2017 to April 17, 2026
> These Rules will apply whenever the parties agree in writing to have their dispute decided "under the Expedited Arbitration Rules of ADR Chambers" or words to that effect.
### ADR Chambers Expedited Arbitration Rules (PDF, revised April 2026)
<https://adrchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ADRC-Expedited-Arbitration-Rules-Revised-April-2026.pdf> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ADR Chambers Expedited Arbitration Rules
> b) These Rules will apply whenever the parties agree in writing to have their dispute decided "under the
> Expedited Arbitration Rules of ADR Chambers" or words to that effect.
### Mediation Model Clauses - ADR Chambers
<https://adrchambers.com/mediation-model-clause/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <h1>Mediation Model Clauses</h1>
> the dispute will be resolved by arbitration at ADR Chambers pursuant to the general ADR Chambers Rules for Arbitration.
> shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration at ADR Chambers under the ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules.
> the Parties agree to resolve the dispute by arbitration at ADR Chambers using the ADR Chambers Expedited Arbitration Rules.
### ADR Chambers Neutral Evaluation – Expert Case Assessment
<https://adrchambers.com/neutral-evaluation/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ADR Chambers Neutral Evaluation – Expert Case Assessment
> Neutral Evaluation Overview
> Neutral Evaluation enables parties to hear an expert's assessment of a likely trial outcome. Neutral Evaluation may involve briefs, oral presentations, and sometimes witnesses. The process can be tailored to the dispute.
> Neutral Evaluation Rules (PDF)
> Neutral Evaluation Sample Agreement (PDF)
> Neutral Evaluation fees range from $250 to $750 plus HST per hour, depending on the experience of the neutral.
### ADR Systems Design - ADR Chambers
<https://adrchambers.com/adr-systems-design/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ADR Systems Design
> ADR Chambers offers dispute resolution systems design consultation services. Consultants help organizations that have problems managing disputes, whether because of their frequency, size, complexity, timing, or number. For more information, please contact ADR Chambers.
> What is Alternative Dispute Resolution System Design?
> ADR system design helps to match the appropriate dispute resolution process with the type of dispute and the culture of an organization.
### ADR Chambers International – International Arbitration and Mediation
<https://adrchambersinternational.com/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> <title>ADR Chambers International &#8211; International Arbitration and Mediation</title>
> ADR Chambers International ("ADRCI") is the leading Canadian organization that specializes in International Arbitration and Mediation. Through the use of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as supplemented by its own state of the art rules, ADRCI provides practitioners and their clients uniformity and credibility in the field of international arbitration and mediation.
> Arbitration
> Arbitration Rules
> Roster of Arbitrators
> Mediation
> Mediation Rules
> Roster of Mediators
> Model Clause
---
## What this establishes
Each item names the source it rests on. An item here that no quotation above
supports is a defect in this file, not a fact.
- ADRIC's corporate name, as it appears in its own site footer and in its rule documents, is "ADR Institute of Canada, Inc." — the comma and the "Inc." are part of the name.
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/>
- ADRIC's arbitration rules are titled "ADRIC Arbitration Rules". The web page's <h1> reads "The ADRIC Arbitration Rules" and the browser title is "ADRIC Arbitration Rules - ADR Institute of Canada".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/arbrules/>
- The current arbitration rules edition is effective 1 March 2025. The page says "ADRIC has adopted new Arbitration Rules and a new Arbitrator Appointment Protocol, effective March 1, 2025" and labels the download "ADRIC Arbitration Rules – Effective 2025".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/arbrules/>
- The PDF cover of the current edition reads "ADRIC / ARBITRATION RULES / Effective 01 March 2025" — ADRIC writes the date day-first on the artefact itself, and "March 1, 2025" in web prose. Its internal title page reads "ADR INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC. / ARBITRATION RULES".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Rules-2025.pdf>
- ADRIC publishes a companion document titled "ADRIC Arbitrator Appointment Protocol", also effective 01 March 2025, whose PDF cover carries "Revised: 2026-01-30".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Protocol-2025.pdf>
- ADRIC's mediation rules are titled "National Mediation Rules". The page <h1> is "The ADRIC National Mediation Rules", the browser title is "National Mediation Rules - ADR Institute of Canada", and the model clause reads "pursuant to the National Mediation Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc."
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/national-mediation-rules/>
- ADRIC is internally inconsistent about the mediation rules' name: the Rules & Codes index nav item reads "National Mediation Rules" while the index card on the same page reads "ADRIC Mediation Rules". Both strings appear in the same fetched document.
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/>
- The mediation rules PDF that ADRIC currently links carries no 2025-era effective date; its internal headings read "ADR INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC. / NATIONAL MEDIATION RULES" and every page footer reads "ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. © As amended August 3, 2012".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/pdf/ADRMEDIATIONRULES2014.pdf>
- As of the page state on 2026-08-29 the mediation rules are under review but unchanged: "the ADRIC Mediation Committee is currently reviewing the Mediation Rules ... In the meantime, the existing rules remain in effect and should continue to be used until any updates are formally adopted."
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/national-mediation-rules/>
- ADRIC's med-arb rules are titled "ADRIC Med-Arb Rules" — hyphenated "Med-Arb", not "Med/Arb" and not "Mediation-Arbitration". The page <h1> is "The ADRIC Med-Arb Rules".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/adric-med-arb-rules/>
- The ADRIC Med-Arb Rules PDF is stamped "Version 1 - 1 June 2020" and its running head and title block read "ADRIC Med-Arb Rules" / "MED-ARB RULES" / "THE ADRIC MED-ARB RULES".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ADRIC_Med_Arb_Rules_2020_8_5-X-11-p.-1.pdf>
- The chartered med-arb designation is written by ADRIC as "Chartered Med-Arbitrator", abbreviated "C.Med-Arb". The Professional Designations page lists verbatim: "Chartered Med-Arbitrator – C.Med-Arb" (raw HTML: "Chartered Med-Arbitrator &#8211; C.Med-Arb"), and the site-wide nav item linking to that page reads "Chartered Med-Arbitrator".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/>
- The string "Chartered Mediator-Arbitrator" does not appear anywhere on the ADRIC or ADRIO pages fetched. A grep for "Mediator-Arbitrator" across all 20+ extracted ADRIC/ADRIO page texts returned no matches; "Med-Arbitrator" matched on every page (nav) plus the designation list.
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/>
- ADRIC uses a second, shorter form for the same designation on the designation's own page: the heading is "ADRIC Chartered Med-Arb Designation (C.Med-Arb)", the browser title is "Chartered Med-Arb - ADR Institute of Canada", and the linked criteria are "Chartered Med-Arb Criteria".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/chartered-med-arb/>
- The ADRIC Med-Arb Rules page uses a third form again: "we have also developed criteria for a specialized designation: the Chartered Med-Arb".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/adric-med-arb-rules/>
- ADRIC's four generalist designations expand as: Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb), Qualified Mediator (Q.Med), Chartered Arbitrator (C.Arb), Chartered Mediator (C.Med). ADRIC groups the first two as "Entry-level Qualified Designations" and the latter two as "Senior-level Chartered Designations".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/>
- ADRIC describes C.Arb as "Canada's only official senior designation for experienced, practicing Arbitrators" and Q.Arb as "an entry-level designation for arbitrators".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/arbitrator-designations/>
- ADRIC describes C.Med as "Canada's most senior designation for mediators with a general or special practice" and Q.Med as "an entry-level step for mediators". The mediator designations page <h1> is "ADRIC's National Designations for Mediators".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/mediator-designations/>
- ADRIC designations are conferred nationally but administered regionally: "You must be a 'Full' Member via one of ADRIC's Regional Affiliates before applying for an ADRIC designation."
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/>
- ADRIC names its seven regional affiliates verbatim as: ADR Institute of British Columbia (ADRBC), ADR Institute of Alberta (ADRIA), ADR Institute of Saskatchewan Inc. (ADRISK), ADR Institute of Manitoba (ADRIM), ADR Institute of Ontario, Inc. (ADRIO), L'Institut de médiation et d'arbitrage du Québec (IMAQ), ADR Atlantic Institute (ADRAI).
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/professional-designations/arbitrator-designations/>
- ADRIC publishes exactly two conduct/ethics instruments for practitioners, and their exact titles are "Code of Ethics" and "Code of Conduct for Mediators": "ADRIC members are held accountable to practice standards that include a Code of Conduct for Mediators and a National Code of Ethics."
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-conduct/>
- The Code of Ethics applies to all ADRIC members and covers both processes: "This code is applicable to all members of the ADR Institute of Canada" and "A Member shall uphold the integrity and fairness of the arbitration and mediation processes."
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-ethics/>
- ADRIC itself calls the same two documents by varying names: the Code of Ethics page says "the Code of Ethics, the Code of Conduct for Mediators"; the Code of Conduct page says "a Code of Conduct for Mediators and a National Code of Ethics"; the Ethics & Professional Practice page says "a Mediator's Code of Conduct and a National Code of Ethics".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/ethics-professional-practice/>
- The Code of Conduct for Mediators is also bound into the National Mediation Rules booklet: "The National Mediation Rules document contains the following: Mediation Rules including Code of Conduct".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/national-mediation-rules/>
- ADRIC's Ethics & Professional Practice section also names two further instruments: "Conflict of Interest" and "Complaints & Discipline Policy".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/ethics-professional-practice/>
- ADRIO's own name, as it writes it, is "The ADR Institute of Ontario" in page titles and "ADR Institute of Ontario, Inc. (ADRIO)" in ADRIC's affiliate list.
*Source:* <https://adr-ontario.ca/professional-designations/>
- ADRIO writes the designation as "Chartered Med-Arbitrator (C.Med-Arb)" — that is the page <h1>, the browser title, and the nav item.
*Source:* <https://adr-ontario.ca/chartered-med-arbitrator-c-med-arb/>
- ADRIO's designation nav lists, verbatim: "Qualified Mediator (Q.Med) & Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb) / Chartered Mediator (C.Med) / Chartered Arbitrator (C.Arb) / Chartered Med-Arbitrator (C.Med-Arb)".
*Source:* <https://adr-ontario.ca/professional-designations/>
- ADRIO publishes its own "Code of Ethics" as a page on its own site, applicable "to all members of the Institute", but points to ADRIC for the Code of Conduct — its "Code of Conduct" entry links to https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-conduct/.
*Source:* <https://adr-ontario.ca/rules-codes/>
- ADRIO does not publish its own mediation or arbitration rules: its Rules & Codes page lists "ADRIC Arbitration Rules" and "National Mediation Rules", both linking out to adric.ca.
*Source:* <https://adr-ontario.ca/rules-codes/>
- ADRIO also publishes two policy documents of its own, titled "ADRIO's Statement Re: Zero Tolerance for Unacceptable Behaviour" and "ADRIO Policy Statement on Conduct & Communication", plus a "Complaints Policy".
*Source:* <https://adr-ontario.ca/rules-codes/>
- ADR Chambers is a private dispute-resolution firm, not a professional body. Its own about page: "For more than 30 years, ADR Chambers, the renowned arbitration mediation firm, has provided conflict resolution services across Canada and internationally." Its rules define "'ADR Chambers' means ADR Chambers Inc."
*Source:* <https://adrchambers.com/about-adr-chambers/>
- ADR Chambers does publish its own rule sets. The exact titles are "ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules", "ADR Chambers Mediation Rules" and "ADR Chambers Expedited Arbitration Rules".
*Source:* <https://adrchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Mediation-Rules.pdf>
- The current ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules are stamped "These Rules are Effective February 10, 2026 and are Subject to Change Without Notice." The website also links three superseded versions (June 3 2025 – February 9 2026; June 1 2024 to June 2 2025; September 10 2013 to May 31 2024).
*Source:* <https://adrchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Revised-ADRC-Arbitration-Rules-Feb-10-2026.pdf>
- The ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules are self-amending without notice: "These Rules may be amended by ADR Chambers in its sole discretion. Amendments become effective when they are posted to the ADR Chambers website." Any citation to a specific edition should therefore carry a retrieval date.
*Source:* <https://adrchambers.com/arbitration/rules/>
- ADR Chambers is itself inconsistent about the arbitration rules' name: on a single model-clauses page it writes both "the general ADR Chambers Rules for Arbitration" and "the ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules". The rules document's own definition uses "ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules".
*Source:* <https://adrchambers.com/mediation-model-clause/>
- The ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules contain a med-arb regime internally, spelled "Med-Arb" in the definitions and "Med/Arb" in the table of contents heading 13; the definition reads "a process by which the Parties agree to first submit their dispute to mediation and, in the event that the dispute does not fully settle at mediation, to an arbitration in accordance with these Rules, where the arbitrator will be the same individual as the mediator."
*Source:* <https://adrchambers.com/arbitration/rules/>
- ADR Chambers offers a distinct "Neutral Evaluation" service — its own name for it does not include the word "Early" — and publishes "Neutral Evaluation Rules (PDF)" and a "Neutral Evaluation Sample Agreement (PDF)".
*Source:* <https://adrchambers.com/neutral-evaluation/>
- ADR Chambers offers dispute-system design under the name "ADR Systems Design": "ADR Chambers offers dispute resolution systems design consultation services."
*Source:* <https://adrchambers.com/adr-systems-design/>
- ADR Chambers International ("ADRCI") is a separate, differently-named entity with its own site and its own arbitration and mediation rules, built on the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. It must not be conflated with ADR Chambers Inc.
*Source:* <https://adrchambersinternational.com/>
- ADRIC does name dispute-system design as a service it provides: "ADRIC also provides dispute resolution services such as ADR systems design, roster development, training and certification , and issues publications for practitioners, parties and counsel."
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/services/>
- ADRIC's dispute-system-design service has a formal page title: "Custom ADR Systems and Roster Development" (the site nav renders it "Custom ADR Systems and Rosters Development"), covering systems development, roster selection and roster management.
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/services/custom-adr-systems-rosters/>
- ADRIC publishes two practitioner manuals, titled "The ADRIC Arbitration Practice Handbook" and "The ADRIC Commercial Mediation Practice Handbook".
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/adric-professional-practice-manuals/>
- The only ADRIC-hosted document found mentioning early neutral evaluation is its sponsored professional-liability insurance brochure, which lists "Early Neutral Evaluation" and "ADR Systems Design / Implementation and/or Management" among insurable ADR activities. This is a schedule of coverage, not a rule set, standard or designation, and the brochure's own PDF creation date is 2016.
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ADR-Brochure-EN-final.pdf>
---
## What this does NOT establish
**Read this section before writing copy.** It is the half that keeps a page
honest, and on this project it is the half that has twice been skipped.
- **Does ADRIC publish anything about EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION as a recognised neutral service — rules, standards, a designation, or a definitional page?**
- *Searched:* WebSearch for 'adric.ca "early neutral evaluation" ADR Institute of Canada' (which surfaced https://adric.ca/ufaqs/what-is-early-neutral-evaluation/); direct curl of that URL; direct curl of https://adric.ca/ufaqs/; ADRIC's own site search at https://adric.ca/?s=early+neutral+evaluation; a grep for 'neutral evaluation' across the extracted text of all 20+ ADRIC and ADRIO pages fetched; a grep for 'neutral evaluation' through the full text of the 42-page ADRIC Arbitration Rules 2025 PDF.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED — and the search-result page is dead. https://adric.ca/ufaqs/what-is-early-neutral-evaluation/ returns HTTP 404 and https://adric.ca/ufaqs/ returns HTTP 404 (both verified by curl reading the status code, stderr not suppressed). ADRIC's own site search returns only loosely-matching journal articles, no ENE page. 'Neutral evaluation' appears nowhere in ADRIC's rules, codes, designations or services pages. The ONLY ADRIC-hosted artefact naming it is the insurance brochure listed in sources — a schedule of insurable activities, roughly a decade old. Do NOT write that ADRIC recognises, defines, or publishes on early neutral evaluation. ADR Chambers, by contrast, does offer it (as 'Neutral Evaluation', without 'Early') and does publish Neutral Evaluation Rules.
- **Is there a separately published rule set titled 'Simplified Arbitration Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc.'? ADRIC's own model arbitration clause offers it as an alternative.**
- *Searched:* The model clause text on https://adric.ca/rules-codes/arbrules/ and on page 1 of the 2025 Rules PDF; a case-insensitive grep for 'simplified' and 'expedited' through the full 42-page 2025 Rules PDF; a grep of the arbrules page HTML for any href containing 'simplified' (exit status 1 — no match); ADRIC site search at https://adric.ca/?s=Simplified+Arbitration+Rules; speculative curl of https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Simplified-Arbitration-Rules-2025.pdf and https://adric.ca/rules-codes/simplified-arbitration-rules/.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED — both speculative URLs returned HTTP 404, the arbrules page links no such document, and the site search surfaced only articles. What actually exists is Rule 6.2 INSIDE the ADRIC Arbitration Rules, headed 'EXPEDITED/SIMPLIFIED ARBITRATION PROCEDURE', plus 'Appendix R2' and a 'SAMPLE EXPEDITED/SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE'. Treat 'Simplified Arbitration Rules' as a phrase in ADRIC's model clause, not as the title of a document you can cite or link. If copy needs to mention it, say it is a procedure within the ADRIC Arbitration Rules.
- **What is the current effective date or edition of the ADRIC National Mediation Rules?**
- *Searched:* https://adric.ca/rules-codes/national-mediation-rules/ page text and HTML (no effective-date string present); every PDF link on that page; the linked rules PDF at https://adric.ca/pdf/ADRMEDIATIONRULES2014.pdf — pdfinfo metadata and pdftotext of pages 1–6 and 20–22.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED as a current-edition date. The page publishes no effective date. The PDF's own footers read 'As amended August 3, 2012'; its filename says 2014; its PDF metadata Title is 'ADR MEDIATION RULES 2011 Cover.p65' with a CreationDate of 24 Feb 2014. Three different years attach to one artefact. The page states the rules are under review by the ADRIC Mediation Committee as of 2025 and that the existing rules remain in effect. Recommendation: name the rules, do not date them.
- **Does ADRIC publish a code of conduct for ARBITRATORS, parallel to its Code of Conduct for Mediators?**
- *Searched:* https://adric.ca/rules-codes/ (full Rules & Codes index, nav and cards), https://adric.ca/ethics-professional-practice/, https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-conduct/ (full text) and https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-ethics/ (full text); the table of contents of the National Mediation Rules booklet PDF.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED — no arbitrator-specific code of conduct was found. ADRIC's own framing is consistently two documents: 'a Code of Conduct for Mediators and a National Code of Ethics'. The Code of Ethics is the instrument that covers arbitrators ('the integrity and fairness of the arbitration and mediation processes'; 'the office of arbitrator or mediator'). Do not write that ADRIC has a code of conduct for arbitrators. The 2025 Arbitration Rules do carry their own conflicts-disclosure standards and a 'Standard statement of arbitrator independence and impartiality', which is a different thing from a code of conduct.
- **Which single string is 'correct' for the chartered med-arb designation, given ADRIC uses more than one?**
- *Searched:* All ADRIC designation pages plus the Med-Arb Rules page and the site-wide nav; all five ADRIO designation pages; raw-HTML inspection of the designation list markup to confirm the dash character.
- *Outcome:* PARTIALLY ESTABLISHED, with a caution. 'Chartered Mediator-Arbitrator' is WRONG and appears nowhere — that much is settled. But ADRIC uses TWO forms of the correct name: 'Chartered Med-Arbitrator' (designation list, site nav) and 'Chartered Med-Arb' (that designation page's own heading, its criteria, and the Med-Arb Rules page). ADRIO uses 'Chartered Med-Arbitrator (C.Med-Arb)' only. Recommendation for copy: 'Chartered Med-Arbitrator (C.Med-Arb)' — the form both institutions share and the only one ADRIO uses. The separator in ADRIC's list is an EN DASH (raw HTML '&#8211;'), not a hyphen; the abbreviation 'C.Med-Arb' takes a hyphen.
- **The cover/front-matter title of the ADRIC Code of Conduct for Mediators as a standalone PDF.**
- *Searched:* curl of https://adric.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Code-of-Conduct-for-Mediators.pdf (HTTP 200, 779,235 bytes, 3 pages); pdftotext with -layout over pages 1-2 and over the whole file.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED from that PDF — pdftotext returned zero characters at exit 0, i.e. the file is a scanned image with no text layer. The title is nevertheless established from two other fetched artefacts: the HTML page renders the heading 'CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEDIATORS' and the opening sentence 'This Code of Conduct for Mediators (the "Code")...', and the National Mediation Rules booklet's contents page carries 'ADR INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC. / CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEDIATORS'.
- **Whether ADR Chambers publishes rules for its med-arb service, under a distinct title.**
- *Searched:* curl of https://adrchambers.com/med-arb/ (HTTP 404); the ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules page and PDF; the model-clauses page; the sidebar link inventory on the mediation, arbitration and expedited-arbitration pages.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED as a separate document. Med-arb at ADR Chambers is governed INSIDE the ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules (Rule 13, 'Med/Arb', with 'Med-Arb', 'Med-Arb Agreement' and 'Notice of Request for Med-Arb' all defined in Rule 1.1), and the firm links a 'Notice of Request for Med-Arb' form. There is no standalone 'ADR Chambers Med-Arb Rules'. Note the firm's service menu spells it 'Med/Arb' while the rules text spells it 'Med-Arb'.
- **A WebFetch-based read of adric.ca, per the instructed method.**
- *Searched:* WebFetch of https://adric.ca/rules-codes/.
- *Outcome:* BLOCKED — WebFetch returned HTTP 403 Forbidden with no body (adric.ca appears to filter by user agent). All ADRIC content in this report was therefore fetched with curl -sSL through Bash, reading the HTTP status code and curl exit status on every request, with stderr NOT suppressed. adr-ontario.ca and adrchambers.com fetched cleanly the same way. HTML was converted to text with the repository's committed extractor at /Users/pouya/Dev/Websites/adr-sml/docs/reference/adrio-extract/extract.mjs, and PDFs with /opt/homebrew/bin/pdftotext -layout.
---
## Searches run
- `WebSearch: ADR Institute of Canada arbitration rules mediation rules official titles adric.ca`
- `WebSearch: ADR Institute of Ontario ADRIO designations Q.Med C.Med chartered mediator official site`
- `WebSearch: ADR Chambers arbitration rules mediation rules adrchambers.com`
- `WebSearch: adric.ca "early neutral evaluation" ADR Institute of Canada`
- `WebFetch https://adric.ca/rules-codes/ — HTTP 403 Forbidden, no body (blocked; all ADRIC reads redone via curl)`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/rules-codes/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/rules-codes/national-mediation-rules/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/rules-codes/arbrules/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/rules-codes/adric-med-arb-rules/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-ethics/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/rules-codes/code-of-conduct/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/ethics-professional-practice/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/professional-designations/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/professional-designations/arbitrator-designations/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/professional-designations/mediator-designations/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/professional-designations/chartered-med-arb/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/services/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/services/custom-adr-systems-rosters/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/adric-professional-practice-manuals/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/about/about-us/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/ufaqs/what-is-early-neutral-evaluation/ — 404`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/ufaqs/ — 404`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Simplified-Arbitration-Rules-2025.pdf — 404`
- `curl -sSL https://adric.ca/rules-codes/simplified-arbitration-rules/ — 404`
- `ADRIC site search: https://adric.ca/?s=early+neutral+evaluation — 200, no ENE page in results`
- `ADRIC site search: https://adric.ca/?s=Simplified+Arbitration+Rules — 200, no such document in results`
- `curl + pdftotext -layout: https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Rules-2025.pdf (200, 42 pp.)`
- `curl + pdftotext -layout: https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Protocol-2025.pdf (200)`
- `curl + pdftotext -layout: https://adric.ca/pdf/ADRMEDIATIONRULES2014.pdf (200, 22 pp.)`
- `curl + pdftotext -layout: https://adric.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ADRIC_Med_Arb_Rules_2020_8_5-X-11-p.-1.pdf (200)`
- `curl + pdftotext: https://adric.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Code-of-Conduct-for-Mediators.pdf (200, 3 pp., NO text layer — scanned image, zero characters extracted at exit 0)`
- `curl + pdftotext -layout: https://adric.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ADR-Brochure-EN-final.pdf (200)`
- `curl -sSL https://adr-ontario.ca/professional-designations/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adr-ontario.ca/qualified-mediator-q-med-qualified-arbitrator-q-arb/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adr-ontario.ca/chartered-mediator-c-med/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adr-ontario.ca/chartered-arbitrator-c-arb/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adr-ontario.ca/chartered-med-arbitrator-c-med-arb/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adr-ontario.ca/rules-codes/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adr-ontario.ca/code-of-ethics/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adr-ontario.ca/what-is-adr/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/about-us/ — 404 (correct path is /about-adr-chambers/)`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/about-adr-chambers/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/arbitration/rules/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/mediation/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/mediation/rules/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/mediation-model-clause/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/model-adr-clauses/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/expedited-arbitration/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/expedited-arbitration/rules/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/med-arb/ — 404`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/neutral-evaluation/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambers.com/adr-systems-design/ — 200`
- `curl -sSL https://adrchambersinternational.com/ — 200`
- `curl + pdftotext: ADR Chambers arbitration, mediation and expedited-arbitration rule PDFs (all 200)`
- `grep -rniE 'neutral evaluation' across all extracted page texts — matched only ADR Chambers pages and the ADRIC search-results page title`
- `grep -rniE 'systems? design|dispute system' across all extracted page texts — matched ADR Chambers pages and adric.ca/services/`
- `grep -n 'Med-Arbitrator' across all extracted page texts — matched ADRIC nav on every page plus the designation list; grep -c 'Mediator-Arbitrator' — zero matches on every file`
- `perl -0777 raw-HTML context reads of the ADRIC designation list and nav, to confirm the en dash and exact strings before quoting`
docs/reference/adric-rules.md
+4 -3
View File
@@ -163,9 +163,10 @@ fetch.**
consent mechanics, caucus information, or the switch from mediation to
arbitration in med-arb. Write those as this practice's own protocol, or not at
all.
- **Anything about ADR Chambers.** `docs/01` §`/arbitration/` names it as a rule
option. It is not sourced here. `docs/07-fees.md` cites ADR Chambers only for
*published fee ranges*, which is a different claim.
- **Anything about ADR Chambers.** It is not sourced here, and as of 2026-08-30
it is named on no page: Pouya struck it from `/arbitration/` and from
`docs/01` item 3. `docs/07-fees.md` cites it only for *published fee ranges*,
which is a different claim and is internal.
- **Legal effect.** Nothing here establishes the enforceability of an award, in
Ontario or anywhere. §4 bars this repository from concluding a proposition of
law.
docs/reference/canada-privacy-technology.md
+616
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,616 @@
# Canadian privacy and AI legislation status, and technology-dispute context
Committed under AGENTS.md R14 and the CLAUDE.md rule it encodes: **anything a
spec makes a claim about must be reachable from the repository.** Every fact
the six `/practice/*` pages state about the world is checkable here or it is
not published.
**Retrieved 2026-08-29.**
> ⚠️ **THIS FILE EXISTS BECAUSE A SPEC NAMED A STATUTE THAT DOES NOT EXIST.**
> `docs/03-content-spec.md` §Practice areas listed *"the 2026 privacy statute"*
> among the market context for `/practice/technology/`. **There is no 2026
> Canadian privacy statute, federal or Ontario.** Bill C-27 — which would have
> enacted the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Artificial Intelligence and
> Data Act — died without royal assent when the 44th Parliament's first session
> ended, and was never reinstated. **PIPEDA remains the operative federal
> private-sector statute.** Caught before a word of it reached a page, and only
> because the check was run rather than the phrase trusted.
> ⚠️ **A statute, a bill and a regulation all move.** Bill C-36 in particular was
> at second reading on the retrieval date and could be law, or dead, by the time
> anyone reads this. **Re-check before cutover.**
**Topic as researched:** Canadian technology / data / AI dispute context — privacy legislation status as at 2026-08-29, Ontario public-sector and health privacy statutes, data residency law, and Canadian arbitral-institution rules for technology/AI disputes
---
## Sources
| Kind | Source | URL |
|---|---|---|
| statute | LEGISinfo — Bill C-27 (44-1), Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022 — Parliament of Canada | <https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-27> |
| statute | LEGISinfo bills data (JSON), 44th Parliament 1st Session — Parliament of Canada | <https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills/json?parlsession=44-1> |
| institution | House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition (2025), Ch. 8 — Prorogation and Dissolution | <https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-4/ch08-7-e.html> |
| statute | Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (S.C. 2000, c. 5) — Justice Laws Website | <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/FullText.html> |
| statute | LEGISinfo bills data (JSON), 45th Parliament 1st Session — Parliament of Canada | <https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills/json?parlsession=45-1> |
| statute | LEGISinfo — Bill C-36 (45-1), An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act — Parliament of Canada | <https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-36> |
| statute | Bill C-36 (45-1), first reading text — Parliament of Canada | <https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-36/first-reading> |
| statute | Statutes of Canada 2026, c. 9 — An Act respecting cyber security … — Justice Laws Website | <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2026_9/> |
| statute | Bill C-8 (45-1), royal assent text — Parliament of Canada | <https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/royal-assent> |
| regulator | Summary of privacy laws in Canada — Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada | <https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/02_05_d_15/> |
| regulator | Guidelines for processing personal data across borders — Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada | <https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/airports-and-borders/gl_dab_090127/> |
| regulator | Announcement: Commissioner concludes consultation on transfers for processing — Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada | <https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/news-and-announcements/2019/an_190923/> |
| statute | Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 — Ontario e-Laws consolidated text (JSON endpoint behind https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/04p03) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/04p03> |
| regulation | O. Reg. 329/04 (GENERAL) under PHIPA — Ontario e-Laws consolidated text (JSON endpoint) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/regulation/040329> |
| statute | Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — Ontario e-Laws consolidated text (JSON endpoint behind https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f31) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/90f31> |
| statute | Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — Ontario e-Laws (JSON endpoint) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/90m56> |
| statute | Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 — Ontario e-Laws consolidated text (JSON endpoint behind https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/24e24) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/24e24> |
| regulation | Ontario e-Laws — regulations made under the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 (JSON endpoint) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-reg/regulation?title=enhancing%20digital%20security%20and%20trust%20act%2C%202024&sort=citation> |
| regulation | O. Reg. 51/26 (CYBER SECURITY) under the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 — Ontario e-Laws (JSON endpoint) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/regulation/260051> |
| regulation | O. Reg. 52/26 (DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS UNDER AGE 18) under the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 — Ontario e-Laws (JSON endpoint) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/regulation/260052> |
| institution | Bill 194, Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024 — Legislative Assembly of Ontario | <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-194> |
| institution | Bills — 44th Parliament, 1st Session — Legislative Assembly of Ontario | <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1> |
| institution | Bill 61, Ontario Artificial Intelligence, Talent and Innovation Strategy Act, 2025 — Legislative Assembly of Ontario | <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-61> |
| statute | Kids' Online Safety and Privacy Month Act, 2025 — Ontario e-Laws consolidated text (JSON endpoint) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/25k25> |
| regulator | Directive on Service and Digital — Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat | <https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32601> |
| regulator | Direction on the Secure Use of Commercial Cloud Services: Security Policy Implementation Notice (SPIN 2017-01) — Government of Canada | <https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/digital-government-innovations/cloud-services/direction-secure-use-commercial-cloud-services-spin.html> |
| institution | ADRIC Arbitration Rules, effective 01 March 2025 — ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. (PDF) | <https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Rules-2025.pdf> |
| institution | Rules & Codes — ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/> |
| institution | Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: A Perfect Fit? — ADR Institute of Canada | <https://adric.ca/artificial-intelligence-and-arbitration-a-perfect-fit/> |
| institution | Who We Are — Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre (CIIDRC) | <https://ciidrc.org/about-ciidrc/> |
| institution | CIIDRC Supplemental Rules — Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre | <https://ciidrc.org/domain-name-disputes/ciidrc-supplemental-rules/> |
| institution | CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (reproduced by CIIDRC, a CIRA-approved provider) | <https://ciidrc.org/domain-name-disputes/cdrp-policy/> |
| institution | Rules of Procedure — VanIAC (Vancouver International Arbitration Centre) | <https://vaniac.org/arbitration/rules-of-procedure/> |
---
## Verbatim quotations
### LEGISinfo — Bill C-27 (44-1), Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022 — Parliament of Canada
<https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-27> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts
> Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022
> At consideration in committee in the House of Commons
> Second reading and referral to committee on Monday, April 24, 2023
> 44th Parliament, 1st session (November 22, 2021 to January 6, 2025)
### LEGISinfo bills data (JSON), 44th Parliament 1st Session — Parliament of Canada
<https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills/json?parlsession=44-1> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> "NumberCode":"C-27" ... "StatusNameEn":"At consideration in committee in the House of Commons"
> "LatestCompletedMajorStageNameEn":"Second reading"
> "ReceivedRoyalAssent":false
> "ReceivedRoyalAssentDateTime":null
> "DidReinstateInNextSession":false
> "IsSessionOngoing":false
> "ParliamentNumber":44, "SessionNumber":1
### House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition (2025), Ch. 8 — Prorogation and Dissolution
<https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-4/ch08-7-e.html> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Government bills which have not received royal assent before prorogation die and, in order to be proceeded with in the new session, must be reintroduced as if they had never existed.
> All items on the Order Paper including government and private members' bills die.
### Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (S.C. 2000, c. 5) — Justice Laws Website
<https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/FullText.html> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act
> Act current to 2026-06-21 and last amended on 2025-03-04.
> 4 (1) This Part applies to every organization in respect of personal information that (a) the organization collects, uses or discloses in the course of commercial activities; or (b) is about an employee of, or an applicant for employment with, the organization and that the organization collects, uses or discloses in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business.
> 4.1.3 An organization is responsible for personal information in its possession or custody, including information that has been transferred to a third party for processing. The organization shall use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by a third party.
> (grep over the full text for the phrases "outside Canada", "stored in Canada", "within Canada" and "localiz" returned exit status 1 and zero lines; instrument check on the same file returned 113 occurrences of "personal information")
### LEGISinfo bills data (JSON), 45th Parliament 1st Session — Parliament of Canada
<https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills/json?parlsession=45-1> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> (185 bills in the session; a regex scan of every LongTitleEn and ShortTitleEn for /privacy|personal information|artificial intelligence|consumer privacy|data protection|cyber|digital charter/i returned exactly two: C-8 and C-36)
> "NumberCode":"C-8" ... "An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts" ... "StatusNameEn":"Royal assent received" ... "ReceivedRoyalAssentDateTime":"2026-06-15T06:15:00-04:00"
> "NumberCode":"C-36" ... "An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make amendments to other Acts" ... "StatusNameEn":"At second reading in the House of Commons" ... "ReceivedRoyalAssent":false
> "PassedHouseFirstReadingDateTime":"2026-06-15T11:18:34.507-04:00"
> (a regex scan of every 45-1 bill title for /intellig/i returned 0 matches)
### LEGISinfo — Bill C-36 (45-1), An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act — Parliament of Canada
<https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-36> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make amendments to other Acts
> Sponsor: Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation
> At second reading in the House of Commons
> First reading: Completed Monday, June 15, 2026
> Royal Assent: Not received
### Bill C-36 (45-1), first reading text — Parliament of Canada
<https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-36/first-reading> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> This enactment enacts the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act to govern the protection of personal information of individuals while taking into account the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities.
> This Act may be cited as the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act.
### Statutes of Canada 2026, c. 9 — An Act respecting cyber security … — Justice Laws Website
<https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2026_9/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts (S.C. 2026, c. 9)
> Assented to June 15, 2026
### Bill C-8 (45-1), royal assent text — Parliament of Canada
<https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/royal-assent> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> STATUTES OF CANADA 2026 CHAPTER 9
> ASSENTED TO June 15, 2026
> Part 2 enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act
### Summary of privacy laws in Canada — Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
<https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/02_05_d_15/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Canada has two federal privacy laws that are enforced by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: the Privacy Act, which covers how the federal government handles personal information; the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which covers how businesses handle personal information.
> PIPEDA sets the ground rules for how private-sector organizations collect, use, and disclose personal information in the course of for-profit, commercial activities across Canada.
> PIPEDA generally applies to personal information held by private sector organizations that are not federally-regulated, and conduct business in: Manitoba New Brunswick Newfoundland and Labrador Northwest Territories Nova Scotia Nunavut Ontario Prince Edward Island Saskatchewan Yukon.
> Date modified: 2018-01-31
### Guidelines for processing personal data across borders — Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
<https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/airports-and-borders/gl_dab_090127/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> PIPEDA does not prohibit organizations in Canada from transferring personal information to an organization in another jurisdiction for processing. However, under PIPEDA, organizations are held accountable for the protection of personal information transfers under each individual outsourcing arrangement.
> Principle 4.1.3 of Schedule 1 of PIPEDA specifically recognizes that personal information may be transferred to third parties for processing. It also requires organizations to use contractual or other means to "provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by the third party."
> In contrast to this state-to-state approach, Canada has, through PIPEDA, chosen an organization-to-organization approach that is not based on the concept of adequacy.
> Date modified: 2009-01-27
### Announcement: Commissioner concludes consultation on transfers for processing — Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
<https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/news-and-announcements/2019/an_190923/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Commissioner concludes consultation on transfers for processing (September 23, 2019)
> guidelines for processing personal data across borders
> remain unchanged under the current law
### Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 — Ontario e-Laws consolidated text (JSON endpoint behind https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/04p03)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/04p03> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> "title": "Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, S.O. 2004, c. 3, Sched. A"
> "description": "Consolidation Period: From January 1, 2026 to the e-Laws currency date." / "comment": "Last amendment: 2025, c. 7, Sched. 6, s. 1-13"
> 12 (1) A health information custodian shall take steps that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that personal health information in the custodian's custody or control is protected against theft, loss and unauthorized use or disclosure and to ensure that the records containing the information are protected against unauthorized copying, modification or disposal.
> Place where records kept 14 (1) A health information custodian may keep a record of personal health information about an individual in the individual's home in any reasonable manner to which the individual consents, subject to any restrictions set out in a regulation, by-law or published guideline under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 …
> Records kept in other places (2) A health care practitioner may keep a record of personal health information about an individual in a place other than the individual's home and other than a place in the control of the practitioner if, (a) the record is kept in a reasonable manner; (b) the individual consents; …
> Disclosure outside Ontario 50 (1) A health information custodian may disclose personal health information about an individual collected in Ontario to a person outside Ontario only if, (a) the individual consents to the disclosure; (b) this Act permits the disclosure; …
> (grep over the extracted plain text for "outside Canada" returned 0 matches; the only "outside Ontario" provisions are s. 44 research approval, and s. 50 disclosure)
### O. Reg. 329/04 (GENERAL) under PHIPA — Ontario e-Laws consolidated text (JSON endpoint)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/regulation/040329> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> "actTitle": "Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, S.O. 2004, c. 3, Sched. A"
> "consolidationPeriod": "January 1, 2026"
> (7) Despite subsection 45 (6) of the Act, the Canadian Institute for Health Information may disclose personal health information about an individual to a person outside Ontario where,
> (10) Despite subsection 45 (6) of the Act, Ontario Health may disclose personal health information about an individual to a person outside Ontario where,
> (a grep over the extracted text for "outside canada", "in canada", "outside ontario" and "stored" returned 3 lines, all of them disclosure-permission or health-number provisions; none imposes a storage-location requirement)
### Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — Ontario e-Laws consolidated text (JSON endpoint behind https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f31)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/90f31> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> "title": "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31"
> "description": "Consolidation Period: From July 1, 2026 to the e-Laws currency date." / "comment": "Last amendment: 2026, c. 2, Sched. 7"
> Privacy safeguards (5) The head of an institution shall take steps that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that personal information in the custody or under the control of the institution is protected against theft, loss and unauthorized use or disclosure and to ensure that the records containing the personal information are protected against unauthorized copying, modification or disposal. 2024, c. 24, Sched. 2, s. 5. / Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y) 2024, c. 24, Sched. 2, s. 5 - 01/07/2025
> Breach of privacy safeguards 40.1 (1) The head of an institution shall report to the Commissioner any theft, loss or unauthorized use or disclosure of personal information in the custody or under the control of the institution if it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that there is real risk that a significant harm to an individual would result or if any other prescribed circumstances exist. 2024, c. 24, Sched. 2, s. 6.
> (grep for "outside Canada" returned exit status 1 and 0 lines; instrument check on the same file returned 248 occurrences of "personal information". "in Canada" appears only at 3 law-enforcement disclosure clauses)
### Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — Ontario e-Laws (JSON endpoint)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/90m56> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> "title": "Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56"
> "description": "Consolidation Period: From July 1, 2026 to the e-Laws currency date."
### Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 — Ontario e-Laws consolidated text (JSON endpoint behind https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/24e24)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/24e24> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> "title": "Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024, S.O. 2024, c. 24, Sched. 1"
> "description": "Consolidation Period: From January 29, 2025 to the e-Laws currency date." / "comment": "No amendments."
> "artificial intelligence system" means, (a) a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers from the input it receives in order to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments, and (b) such other systems as may be prescribed;
> 5 (1) This section applies to such public sector entities as may be prescribed for the purposes of this section if they use or intend to use an artificial intelligence system in prescribed circumstances.
> No establishment of private law duty of care 12 Nothing in the Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024 , this Act or any regulation made or directive issued under this Act establishes a private law duty of care owing to any person.
> Effect of failure to comply 13 Failure to comply with this Act or any regulation made or directive issued under this Act does not affect the validity of any policy, Act, regulation, directive, instrument or decision.
### Ontario e-Laws — regulations made under the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 (JSON endpoint)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-reg/regulation?title=enhancing%20digital%20security%20and%20trust%20act%2C%202024&sort=citation> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> current: 2 results — "regulation/260052" DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS UNDER AGE 18; "regulation/260051" CYBER SECURITY
> revoked: 0 results
### O. Reg. 51/26 (CYBER SECURITY) under the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 — Ontario e-Laws (JSON endpoint)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/regulation/260051> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> "title": "CYBER SECURITY" / "actTitle": "Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024, S.O. 2024, c. 24, Sched. 1"
> "consolidationPeriod": "July 1, 2026" / "comment": "No amendments."
> CONTENTS 1. Interpretation 2. Prescribed public sector entities 3. Program 4. Primary point of contact and alternate 5. Cyber security maturity assessment 6. Cyber security maturity assessment summary 7. Critical cyber security incident, report
> (a case-insensitive count of "artificial intelligence" in the extracted text returned 0)
### O. Reg. 52/26 (DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS UNDER AGE 18) under the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 — Ontario e-Laws (JSON endpoint)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/regulation/260052> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> "title": "DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS UNDER AGE 18" / "actTitle": "Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024, S.O. 2024, c. 24, Sched. 1"
> "consolidationPeriod": "July 1, 2026" / "comment": "No amendments."
> (a case-insensitive count of "artificial intelligence" in the extracted text returned 0)
### Bill 194, Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024 — Legislative Assembly of Ontario
<https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-194> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Bill 194, Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024
> Royal Assent received. Statutes of Ontario 2024, chapter 24
> cyber security and artificial intelligence systems at public sector entities
> public sector entities may be required to comply with requirements respecting the use of artificial intelligence, including requirements to provide information, to develop and implement accountability frameworks and to take steps respecting risk management
### Bills — 44th Parliament, 1st Session — Legislative Assembly of Ontario
<https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> (139 numbered bills, 1 through 139, listed on a single unpaginated page; a keyword scan of all titles for /privacy|personal information|freedom of information|health information|artificial intelligence|data|digital|cyber|technolog|online/i returned exactly four)
> Bill 15: Kids' Online Safety and Privacy Month Act, 2025
> Bill 61: Ontario Artificial Intelligence, Talent and Innovation Strategy Act, 2025
> Bill 66: Kids' Online Safety and Privacy Month Act, 2025
> Bill 137: Keeping Our Kids Safe Online Act, 2026
### Bill 61, Ontario Artificial Intelligence, Talent and Innovation Strategy Act, 2025 — Legislative Assembly of Ontario
<https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-61> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Bill 61, Ontario Artificial Intelligence, Talent and Innovation Strategy Act, 2025
> Private member's bill
> November 24, 2025 — Second Reading — Lost on division
### Kids' Online Safety and Privacy Month Act, 2025 — Ontario e-Laws consolidated text (JSON endpoint)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/25k25> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> "title": "Kids' Online Safety and Privacy Month Act, 2025, S.O. 2025, c. 25"
> "description": "Consolidation Period: From December 11, 2025 to the e-Laws currency date."
> Kids' Online Safety and Privacy Month 1 The month of October in each year is proclaimed as Kids' Online Safety and Privacy Month.
> 2 Omitted ( provides for coming into force of provisions of this Act ). 3 Omitted (enacts short title of this Act).
### Directive on Service and Digital — Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
<https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32601> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Information and data residency
> 4.3.24 Ensuring that computing facilities located within the geographic boundaries of Canada or within the premises of a GC department located abroad, such as a diplomatic or consular mission, be identified and evaluated as a principal delivery option for all sensitive electronic information and data under government control that has been categorized as Protected B or Protected C or is classified;
> Date modified: 2025-08-29
### Direction on the Secure Use of Commercial Cloud Services: Security Policy Implementation Notice (SPIN 2017-01) — Government of Canada
<https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/digital-government-innovations/cloud-services/direction-secure-use-commercial-cloud-services-spin.html> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> SPIN No.: 2017-01 Date: November 1, 2017 Date modified: June 23, 2022
> 6.2.2 Data residency — Departments are expected to apply the Directive on Service and Digital when implementing safeguards for GC electronic data residency.
### ADRIC Arbitration Rules, effective 01 March 2025 — ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. (PDF)
<https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Rules-2025.pdf> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ADRIC ARBITRATION RULES Effective 01 March 2025
> ADRIC intends these Rules for Canadian commercial disputes; however, parties can apply them to international or non-commercial disputes.
> Privacy and Security of Evidence 31. Each party and its counsel are responsible for ensuring that all relevant privacy and data security requirements prescribed by law or contract in relation to evidence put forward by that party are complied with, and that the Tribunal is made aware of any steps that the Tribunal needs to take in that regard.
> (a case-insensitive grep of the extracted 103,811-character text for "artificial intelligence", "machine learning" and the standalone token "AI" returned no matches; the only hits for "technolog|cyber|data|electronic" were three lines about electronic data as evidence, electronic delivery, and the clause quoted above)
### Rules & Codes — ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/rules-codes/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Rules & Codes — ADR Institute of Canada
> ADRIC By-laws / Federation MoU / ADRIC Arbitration Rules / National Mediation Rules / ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
> Ethics & Professional Practice — Code of Ethics / Code of Conduct / Conflict of Interest / Complaints & Discipline Policy / Privacy Policy / Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision
### Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: A Perfect Fit? — ADR Institute of Canada
<https://adric.ca/artificial-intelligence-and-arbitration-a-perfect-fit/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: A Perfect Fit?
> March 2, 2023
> By Robin Dodokin, Sarah McEachern, Les Honywill
> Machine learning and AI have progressed so far that their integration into the arbitral process seems inevitable, with the only question being a matter of time and degree.
### Who We Are — Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre (CIIDRC)
<https://ciidrc.org/about-ciidrc/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> The Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre ("CIIDRC", "the Centre") serves global Internet users by providing trusted and efficient resolution of domain name disputes under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the UDRP) and the CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the CDRP).
> CIIDRC is a division of the Vancouver International Arbitration Centre, formerly known as the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre ("the Centre").
> CIIDRC's parent organization, VanIAC (formerly BCICAC), has been a service provider for the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) since 2002, successfully managing .ca (dot ca) domain name disputes.
### CIIDRC Supplemental Rules — Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre
<https://ciidrc.org/domain-name-disputes/ciidrc-supplemental-rules/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> CIIDRC Supplemental Rules OF THE CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL INTERNET DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE (the "Centre" or the "CIIDRC" or the "Provider") FOR THE UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY (the "Policy") AND THE RULES FOR THE UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY (the "UDRP Rules")
> The Supplemental Rules (In effect as of May 9, 2018)
### CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (reproduced by CIIDRC, a CIRA-approved provider)
<https://ciidrc.org/domain-name-disputes/cdrp-policy/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy — Version 1.3 (August 22, 2011)
> 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") is to provide a forum in which cases of bad faith registration of domain names registered in the dot-ca country code top level domain name registry operated by CIRA (the "Registry") can be dealt with relatively inexpensively and quickly.
> 1.2 Scope. The Policy sets forth the terms and conditions for resolution by arbitration of a dispute between a person (the "Registrant") who has obtained the registration of a domain name in the Registry (the "Registration") and any other person …
> 1.5 Dispute Resolution Service Provider. All Proceedings will be administered by a dispute resolution service provider approved by CIRA (the "Provider").
### Rules of Procedure — VanIAC (Vancouver International Arbitration Centre)
<https://vaniac.org/arbitration/rules-of-procedure/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Rules of Procedure — Domestic Arbitration Rules (as amended Sept. 1, 2020)
> International Commercial Arbitration Rules of Procedure (as amended July 1, 2022)
> International Commercial Arbitration Rules of Procedure (as amended Jan. 1, 2000)
> (the page's full navigation lists arbitration, mediation and motor-vehicle rules, forms, fee schedules and an Arbitrator Code of Conduct; no rule set, guideline or note on artificial intelligence or technology disputes appears)
---
## What this establishes
- PIPEDA — the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 — is the federal private-sector privacy statute in force. The Justice Laws consolidation states "Act current to 2026-06-21 and last amended on 2025-03-04."
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/FullText.html>
- PIPEDA Part 1 applies to every organization in respect of personal information it "collects, uses or discloses in the course of commercial activities" (s. 4(1)(a)), and to employee information in connection with a federal work, undertaking or business (s. 4(1)(b)).
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/FullText.html>
- The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada states that Canada has two federal privacy laws it enforces — the Privacy Act (federal government) and PIPEDA, which "sets the ground rules for how private-sector organizations collect, use, and disclose personal information in the course of for-profit, commercial activities across Canada." PIPEDA generally applies to non-federally-regulated private-sector organizations doing business in Ontario (among other provinces and territories).
*Source:* <https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/02_05_d_15/>
- Bill C-27 (44th Parliament, 1st Session) was the bill that would have enacted the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act. Its short title was the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022.
*Source:* <https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-27>
- Bill C-27 never received royal assent. LEGISinfo records its last completed major stage as "Second reading", its status as "At consideration in committee in the House of Commons", ReceivedRoyalAssent = false, ReceivedRoyalAssentDateTime = null, IsSessionOngoing = false, and DidReinstateInNextSession = false.
*Source:* <https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills/json?parlsession=44-1>
- The 44th Parliament's 1st session ran to January 6, 2025, and Bill C-27 had not advanced past committee when it ended.
*Source:* <https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-27>
- Under House of Commons Procedure and Practice (4th ed., 2025), "Government bills which have not received royal assent before prorogation die and, in order to be proceeded with in the new session, must be reintroduced as if they had never existed," and on dissolution "All items on the Order Paper including government and private members' bills die." Combined with the LEGISinfo record, this means the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act were never enacted and do not exist as Canadian law.
*Source:* <https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-4/ch08-7-e.html>
- In the 45th Parliament, 1st Session, a scan of all 185 bills found only two whose titles touch privacy, AI, cyber or data protection: C-8 and C-36. No bill in the session has "intellig" (i.e. "intelligence") anywhere in its title — there is no successor AI bill to AIDA before Parliament.
*Source:* <https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills/json?parlsession=45-1>
- Bill C-36 (45-1), "An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make amendments to other Acts", received first reading on June 15, 2026, is sponsored by the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, and its status is "At second reading in the House of Commons". Royal assent has NOT been received.
*Source:* <https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-36>
- Bill C-36 would enact the "Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act" to govern protection of personal information collected, used or disclosed in the course of commercial activities. It is a bill, not a statute — nothing in it is in force.
*Source:* <https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-36/first-reading>
- There is no "2026 privacy statute" in Canadian federal law. The only 2026 federal privacy instrument is Bill C-36, introduced 15 June 2026 and still at second reading with no royal assent, so PIPEDA remains the operative federal private-sector privacy statute as at 2026-08-29.
*Source:* <https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills/json?parlsession=45-1>
- The one cyber/data-adjacent federal statute enacted in 2025–2026 is Bill C-8, "An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts", which received royal assent on June 15, 2026 and is S.C. 2026, c. 9. It enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act. It is a critical-infrastructure cyber security statute, not a privacy or AI statute.
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2026_9/>
- Ontario public-sector access/privacy statute: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 (e-Laws consolidation period from July 1, 2026; last amendment 2026, c. 2, Sched. 7).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/90f31>
- Ontario municipal-sector equivalent: Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56 (e-Laws consolidation period from July 1, 2026).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/90m56>
- Ontario health privacy statute: Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, S.O. 2004, c. 3, Sched. A (e-Laws consolidation period from January 1, 2026; last amendment 2025, c. 7, Sched. 6, ss. 1–13).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/04p03>
- FIPPA's privacy-safeguard duty (s. 40(5)) and mandatory breach reporting to the Commissioner and notification to affected individuals (s. 40.1) were enacted by S.O. 2024, c. 24, Sched. 2, ss. 5–6, and the e-Laws in-force note records both as in force 01/07/2025.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/90f31>
- Ontario's AI-relevant statute is the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024, S.O. 2024, c. 24, Sched. 1 (enacted by Bill 194, royal assent giving Statutes of Ontario 2024, chapter 24), consolidated from January 29, 2025 with no amendments. It defines "artificial intelligence system" as "a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers from the input it receives in order to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments".
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/24e24>
- Every EDSTA AI obligation is conditional on regulations: s. 5(1) applies only "to such public sector entities as may be prescribed … if they use or intend to use an artificial intelligence system in prescribed circumstances." The Act also states at s. 12 that nothing in it "establishes a private law duty of care owing to any person", and at s. 13 that failure to comply "does not affect the validity of any policy, Act, regulation, directive, instrument or decision."
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/24e24>
- Only two regulations have been made under EDSTA — O. Reg. 51/26 (Cyber Security) and O. Reg. 52/26 (Digital Technology Affecting Individuals Under Age 18); the e-Laws listing shows 2 current and 0 revoked. No AI regulation has been made, so EDSTA's artificial-intelligence sections have no prescribed entities or circumstances and impose no operative obligation as at 2026-08-29.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-reg/regulation?title=enhancing%20digital%20security%20and%20trust%20act%2C%202024&sort=citation>
- O. Reg. 51/26 (Cyber Security) under EDSTA has a consolidation period from July 1, 2026 and covers prescribed public sector entities, cyber security programs, a primary point of contact, cyber security maturity assessments and critical incident reporting. The phrase "artificial intelligence" does not appear in it.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/regulation/260051>
- O. Reg. 52/26 (Digital Technology Affecting Individuals Under Age 18) under EDSTA has a consolidation period from July 1, 2026 and deals with prescribed school boards and notice of disclosure of students' personal digital information. The phrase "artificial intelligence" does not appear in it.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/regulation/260052>
- No Ontario privacy or AI regulatory statute was enacted in 2025 or 2026. Of the 139 bills in the Ontario 44th Parliament 1st Session, only four have privacy/AI/online titles: Bill 61, the Ontario Artificial Intelligence, Talent and Innovation Strategy Act, 2025 (a private member's bill) was lost on division at second reading on November 24, 2025; Bill 137 is still at first reading; and Bills 15/66 are commemorative-month bills.
*Source:* <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1>
- Bill 61, the Ontario Artificial Intelligence, Talent and Innovation Strategy Act, 2025, was a private member's bill and was lost on division at second reading on November 24, 2025 — Ontario has no AI strategy statute.
*Source:* <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-61>
- The only Ontario statute with "Privacy" in its title enacted in this period is the Kids' Online Safety and Privacy Month Act, 2025, S.O. 2025, c. 25 (in force December 11, 2025). Its entire operative content is s. 1: "The month of October in each year is proclaimed as Kids' Online Safety and Privacy Month." It creates no privacy obligations.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/25k25>
- DATA RESIDENCY — PIPEDA contains no data-localization requirement. A grep of the full Justice Laws consolidation for "outside Canada", "stored in Canada", "within Canada" and "localiz" returned zero matches (grep exit status 1), against 113 occurrences of "personal information" in the same file as an instrument check.
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/FullText.html>
- The OPC states directly: "PIPEDA does not prohibit organizations in Canada from transferring personal information to an organization in another jurisdiction for processing. However, under PIPEDA, organizations are held accountable for the protection of personal information transfers under each individual outsourcing arrangement." Canada's approach is organization-to-organization accountability, not EU-style adequacy.
*Source:* <https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/airports-and-borders/gl_dab_090127/>
- What PIPEDA requires instead of residency is accountability: Schedule 1, clause 4.1.3 — "An organization is responsible for personal information in its possession or custody, including information that has been transferred to a third party for processing. The organization shall use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by a third party."
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/FullText.html>
- The OPC reopened and then closed this question: on September 23, 2019 the Commissioner concluded the consultation on transfers for processing, confirming that the guidelines for processing personal data across borders "remain unchanged under the current law."
*Source:* <https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/news-and-announcements/2019/an_190923/>
- DATA RESIDENCY — Ontario PHIPA imposes no requirement that personal health information be stored in Ontario or in Canada. The section headed "Place where records kept" (s. 14) is about keeping records in the individual's home or a place other than the practitioner's control, not about jurisdiction. The phrase "outside Canada" does not appear anywhere in the Act.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/04p03>
- PHIPA s. 50 ("Disclosure outside Ontario") is a disclosure-permission rule, not a storage rule: it permits a custodian to disclose personal health information collected in Ontario to a person outside Ontario where, among other gateways, the individual consents, the Act permits the disclosure, or the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the provision of health care to the individual.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/04p03>
- PHIPA's security duty (s. 12(1)) is a reasonableness standard — "steps that are reasonable in the circumstances" to protect against theft, loss and unauthorized use or disclosure — with no location component.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/04p03>
- O. Reg. 329/04 (General) under PHIPA likewise imposes no storage-location requirement. Its only "outside Ontario" provisions permit the Canadian Institute for Health Information and Ontario Health to disclose to persons outside Ontario in defined circumstances.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/regulation/040329>
- DATA RESIDENCY — Ontario FIPPA contains no data-localization requirement either. A grep of the full consolidated text for "outside Canada" returned zero matches (grep exit status 1) against 248 occurrences of "personal information" as an instrument check; the only "in Canada" occurrences are law-enforcement disclosure clauses.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-content/statute/90f31>
- The closest thing to a Canadian residency rule is a federal internal-administration policy, not a law of general application, and it is not absolute. Treasury Board's Directive on Service and Digital, s. 4.3.24, requires only that Canadian computing facilities "be identified and evaluated as a principal delivery option" for Government of Canada data categorized Protected B, Protected C or classified. It binds federal departments, not private organizations.
*Source:* <https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32601>
- The cloud direction commonly cited for "data must stay in Canada" (SPIN 2017-01) does not itself set a residency rule: its s. 6.2.2 says only that "Departments are expected to apply the Directive on Service and Digital when implementing safeguards for GC electronic data residency."
*Source:* <https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/digital-government-innovations/cloud-services/direction-secure-use-commercial-cloud-services-spin.html>
- ARBITRAL INSTITUTIONS — The ADR Institute of Canada's current ADRIC Arbitration Rules (effective 01 March 2025) contain no provision on artificial intelligence, machine learning, or technology disputes. A case-insensitive grep of the full 103,811-character extracted text for "artificial intelligence", "machine learning" and the token "AI" returned no matches. The only data-related clause is a party-responsibility rule for privacy and data security of evidence.
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Rules-2025.pdf>
- ADRIC's published Rules & Codes are: ADRIC By-laws, Federation MoU, ADRIC Arbitration Rules, National Mediation Rules, ADRIC Med-Arb Rules, Code of Ethics, Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest, Complaints & Discipline Policy, Privacy Policy, and an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision. None is specific to technology, data or AI disputes.
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/rules-codes/>
- ADRIC's only AI-related publication located is an article, not a rule or guideline: "Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: A Perfect Fit?", dated March 2, 2023, by Robin Dodokin, Sarah McEachern and Les Honywill. It is commentary about AI's likely role in arbitration, not institutional guidance to arbitrators or parties.
*Source:* <https://adric.ca/artificial-intelligence-and-arbitration-a-perfect-fit/>
- There IS a Canadian arbitral institution with rules specific to one class of technology dispute: the Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre (CIIDRC), a division of the Vancouver International Arbitration Centre (VanIAC, formerly BCICAC), which resolves domain-name disputes under the UDRP and CIRA's CDRP and has been a CIRA service provider since 2002.
*Source:* <https://ciidrc.org/about-ciidrc/>
- CIIDRC publishes its own Supplemental Rules for the UDRP, in effect as of May 9, 2018, which govern communications, complaints and annexes, panelist appointment, fees, word limits and file format for domain-name proceedings.
*Source:* <https://ciidrc.org/domain-name-disputes/ciidrc-supplemental-rules/>
- The CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Version 1.3 (August 22, 2011), provides for "resolution by arbitration" of disputes over bad-faith registration of .ca domain names, administered by a dispute resolution service provider approved by CIRA.
*Source:* <https://ciidrc.org/domain-name-disputes/cdrp-policy/>
- VanIAC's own Rules of Procedure page lists only its Domestic Arbitration Rules (as amended Sept. 1, 2020) and International Commercial Arbitration Rules of Procedure (as amended July 1, 2022 and Jan. 1, 2000), plus mediation and motor-vehicle rules. No AI or technology-dispute rule set or guidance note appears.
*Source:* <https://vaniac.org/arbitration/rules-of-procedure/>
---
## What this does NOT establish
**Read this section before writing copy.**
- **Does "the 2026 privacy statute" referred to in docs/03-content-spec.md line 299 exist?**
- *Searched:* LEGISinfo bill records for the 44th Parliament 1st Session (all 412 bills) and 45th Parliament 1st Session (all 185 bills), fetched as JSON from parl.ca; the LEGISinfo bill pages for C-27, C-36 and C-8; the Justice Laws consolidation of PIPEDA and the 2026 annual statutes index; the Ontario e-Laws consolidated statute database; and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario's complete bill list for the 44th Parliament 1st Session (139 bills).
- *Outcome:* NO SUCH STATUTE EXISTS. Nothing enacted federally or in Ontario in 2025 or 2026 is a privacy statute. The nearest real things are (a) federal Bill C-36, introduced 15 June 2026, which WOULD enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act — but it is at second reading with no royal assent; (b) federal Bill C-8 / S.C. 2026, c. 9, a cyber security statute, not privacy; and (c) Ontario O. Regs. 51/26 and 52/26 in force 1 July 2026, which are regulations under a 2024 Act, not a statute. Any public-page copy relying on "the 2026 privacy statute" as market context is asserting something that is not law. If the intent was "pending federal privacy reform", the accurate framing is Bill C-36 (45-1), first reading 15 June 2026, still before the House.
- **Did the Consumer Privacy Protection Act or the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act ever come into force in any form?**
- *Searched:* LEGISinfo C-27 page and JSON record (royal assent flags, reinstatement flags, session-ongoing flag); a scan of all 185 bills in the 45th Parliament 1st Session for any bill title containing "intellig", "artificial intelligence", "consumer privacy" or "data protection"; House of Commons Procedure and Practice 4th ed. on prorogation and dissolution.
- *Outcome:* No. C-27 died without royal assent and was not reinstated; no successor AI or CPPA bill has been introduced in the 45th Parliament. Canada has no federal AI statute as at 2026-08-29.
- **Is there any Canadian federal or Ontario legal requirement that personal data be stored in Canada?**
- *Searched:* Full-text greps of PIPEDA, Ontario FIPPA, PHIPA and O. Reg. 329/04 for "outside Canada", "within Canada", "stored in Canada" and "localiz"; the OPC's Guidelines for processing personal data across borders and its 2019 consultation conclusion; Treasury Board's SPIN 2017-01 and the Directive on Service and Digital.
- *Outcome:* No such requirement was found in any of them, and the OPC states the opposite for PIPEDA. NOT CHECKED, and outside the scope asked: the public-sector residency provisions in British Columbia's FIPPA and Nova Scotia's PIIDPA, which are the usual real source of the belief that "Canadian data must stay in Canada". Do not assert anything about those provinces from this artefact.
- **Does any Canadian arbitral institution publish formal guidance (as distinct from rules) on the use of AI in arbitration or mediation?**
- *Searched:* ADRIC's page sitemap (175 pages) grepped for ai/artificial/tech/rule/code/guideline/protocol; the ADRIC Rules & Codes index; the full text of the ADRIC Arbitration Rules effective 01 March 2025; VanIAC's Rules of Procedure page and site navigation.
- *Outcome:* None found. ADRIC's only AI material located is a 2023 commentary article and a 2026 conference session page ("The AI-Ready Neutral: Practical Essentials for Arbitrators and Mediators"), neither of which is institutional guidance. The conference page itself was NOT fetched — only its URL appeared in the sitemap — so nothing should be claimed about its content.
- **Do ICDR Canada or the Canadian Arbitration Association publish technology- or AI-specific rules?**
- *Searched:* Keyword web search naming ADRIC, VanIAC, CCAC and ICDR Canada together with AI guidance; their own sites were not individually fetched.
- *Outcome:* Not established either way. Neither icdr.org nor the Canadian Arbitration Association's site was retrieved, so no claim can be made about what they do or do not publish.
- **Coming-into-force status of the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (S.C. 2026, c. 9) — which of its provisions are actually operative.**
- *Searched:* The LEGISinfo C-8 page, the royal assent text summary, and the Justice Laws Annual Statutes 2026 c. 9 landing page.
- *Outcome:* Royal assent (15 June 2026) is confirmed, but the coming-into-force provisions were not read in full. Do not assert that the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act is in force; assert only that it was enacted.
- **What S.O. 2026, c. 2, Sched. 7 (the most recent FIPPA amendment) actually changes.**
- *Searched:* Ontario e-Laws statute record for S.O. 2026, c. 2, identified as the Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2026 (Bill 97), assented to April 24, 2026; the schedule's text was not extracted.
- *Outcome:* Identified as a budget-measures omnibus amendment to FIPPA; its substance was not read and must not be characterised.
---
## Searches run
- `WebSearch: Bill C-27 Digital Charter Implementation Act status LEGISinfo died on Order Paper prorogation`
- `WebSearch: PIPEDA Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act S.C. 2000 c. 5 justice laws`
- `WebFetch: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-27`
- `WebFetch: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-27/json`
- `WebFetch: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/`
- `curl: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/FullText.html (then grep for residency terms; grep exit status read directly rather than through a pipe, after an initial `grep ... | head` gave a misleading exit code)`
- `curl: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills/json?parlsession=44-1 (412 bill records, keyword scan)`
- `curl: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills/json?parlsession=45-1 (185 bill records, keyword scan + 'intellig' scan + full royal-assent list)`
- `WebFetch: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-36`
- `WebFetch: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-36/first-reading`
- `WebFetch: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-8`
- `WebFetch: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/royal-assent`
- `WebFetch: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2026_9/`
- `WebSearch + WebFetch: https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-4/ch08-7-e.html (prorogation and dissolution)`
- `Ontario e-Laws: discovered the JSON API behind the ontario.ca/laws SPA (the HTML pages return only a JS shell to any fetcher, and WebFetch got nothing) by reading /laws/static/js/main.dbd400db.js; base https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation`
- `e-Laws API: /en/currency-date -> "August 26, 2026"`
- `e-Laws API: /en/act-content/statute/04p03 (PHIPA) + extraction of ss. 12, 13, 14, 50 and residency grep`
- `e-Laws API: /en/act-content/regulation/040329 (O. Reg. 329/04 under PHIPA) + residency grep`
- `e-Laws API: /en/act-content/statute/90f31 (FIPPA) + ss. 40, 40.1 + residency grep with exit status read`
- `e-Laws API: /en/act-content/statute/90m56 (MFIPPA)`
- `e-Laws API: /en/act-content/statute/24e24 (Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024) + full text extraction`
- `e-Laws API: /en/act-reg/regulation?title=enhancing+digital+security+and+trust+act,+2024 (complete list of regulations made under EDSTA: 2 current, 0 revoked)`
- `e-Laws API: /en/act-content/regulation/260051 and /260052 (O. Reg. 51/26 and 52/26) + 'artificial intelligence' count`
- `e-Laws API: /en/act-content/statute/s26002 (S.O. 2026, c. 2 = Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2026, assented April 24, 2026)`
- `e-Laws API: /en/act-content/statute/25k25 and /s25025 (Kids' Online Safety and Privacy Month Act, 2025)`
- `WebSearch: Ontario Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act 2024 in force FIPPA amendments Bill 194`
- `WebSearch: 'Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act' Ontario regulation O. Reg. cyber security 2026 July 1 2026`
- `WebFetch: https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-194`
- `curl + scrape: https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1 (all 139 bills, unpaginated, keyword scan)`
- `WebFetch: ola.org bills 61, 66 and 137 (44-1)`
- `WebFetch: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/airports-and-borders/gl_dab_090127/ + curl to verify the page title and Date modified`
- `curl: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/02_05_d_15/ (Summary of privacy laws in Canada)`
- `WebSearch (priv.gc.ca only) + WebFetch: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/news-and-announcements/2019/an_190923/`
- `WebSearch (canada.ca only) + curl: SPIN 2017-01 and https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32601 (Directive on Service and Digital, s. 4.3.24)`
- `WebSearch: ADRIC artificial intelligence arbitration guideline rules technology disputes`
- `curl + pdftotext: https://adric.ca/rules/ADRIC-Arbitration-Rules-2025.pdf (103,811 chars extracted) + AI/technology grep`
- `curl: https://adric.ca/sitemap_index.xml and /page-sitemap.xml (175 pages) + ai/artificial/tech/rule/guideline grep`
- `curl: https://adric.ca/rules-codes/ and https://adric.ca/artificial-intelligence-and-arbitration-a-perfect-fit/`
- `WebSearch: VanIAC Vancouver International Arbitration Centre artificial intelligence guidelines rules 2025 2026`
- `curl: https://vaniac.org/arbitration/rules-of-procedure/ and https://vaniac.org/`
- `curl: https://ciidrc.org/ , /about-ciidrc/ , /domain-name-disputes/cdrp-policy/ , /domain-name-disputes/ciidrc-supplemental-rules/`
- `BLOCKED, recorded so a later reader does not mistake silence for absence: canlii.org returned HTTP 403 to WebFetch; cira.ca returned a Cloudflare HTTP 403 to both WebFetch and curl (the CDRP policy was therefore sourced from CIIDRC, a CIRA-approved provider, not from CIRA itself); adric.ca/rules/ returned HTTP 403 to curl although the rules PDF on the same host returned 200; canada.ca returned 403 to WebFetch but 200 to curl with a browser user-agent.`
docs/reference/lat-case-conference.md
+47 -6
View File
@@ -135,9 +135,36 @@ and it is the affirmative basis for the offering rather than a problem for it:
> at all times, including before filing at the LAT‑AABS, and continuing
> negotiation discussions after a claim has been filed.
The Tribunal itself points parties at private mediation, **before filing and
continuing after filing.** That is exactly the space a privately retained
mediator occupies, and it is the Tribunal's own words for it.
> ⚠️ **CORRECTED 2026-08-29. THE GLOSS THAT STOOD HERE WAS WRONG, AND IT WAS
> WRONG ABOUT THE QUOTATION THREE LINES ABOVE IT.** It read: *"The Tribunal
> itself points parties at private mediation, **before filing and continuing
> after filing.** That is exactly the space a privately retained mediator
> occupies, and it is the Tribunal's own words for it."*
>
> **Read the passage again.** Sentence 1 names **mediation**, and names it for
> one moment only — *"Before you apply."* Sentence 2 is about **negotiation**:
> *"Parties are encouraged to attempt to **negotiate** the claim at all times,
> including before filing at the LAT-AABS, and continuing **negotiation**
> discussions after a claim has been filed."* The word appears twice. **The
> "continuing after filing" frame belongs to negotiation, and the gloss carried
> it across onto mediation.** The word **"private"** is not the Tribunal's
> either — the sentence names no provider and draws no public/private
> distinction.
>
> **What the passage does support:** the Tribunal names mediation as something a
> party may consider **before applying**, and encourages negotiated settlement
> at every stage. That is an affirmative basis for the offering. It is not a
> Tribunal statement about mediating a claim that is already filed.
>
> **How this got past three checks.** The quotation was fetched, pasted
> verbatim, and is correct. The overreach is in the sentence *underneath* it —
> and that sentence, not the quote, is what propagated into `docs/01`, into
> `src/data/site.ts`, and from there into published copy on three pages. Two
> review rounds and a claims audit read this file and did not catch it, because
> the quote sat right there and appeared to say it. Caught 2026-08-29 by an
> independent re-fetch that read the sentence structure rather than the gloss.
> **Same shape as Q39's struck universal: the source was fine and the sentence
> drawn from it was wider than the source.**
---
@@ -149,8 +176,14 @@ mediator occupies, and it is the Tribunal's own words for it.
Tribunal Member**. `LAT pre-hearing mediation` therefore describes a thing
that does not exist, and the half a reader would recognise — *pre-hearing* —
is the Tribunal's own label for a step nobody outside the Tribunal conducts.
2. Private mediation of accident-benefits and SABS disputes is **compatible with
a LAT application, before filing or after**, and the Tribunal says so.
2. The Tribunal names **mediation** as an option a party may consider **before
applying**, and encourages negotiated settlement at all stages including
after filing. *(Corrected 2026-08-29. This item read: "Private mediation of
accident-benefits and SABS disputes is **compatible with a LAT application,
before filing or after**, and the Tribunal says so." The last five words were
false — see the correction box above. Whether a filed claim can also be
privately mediated is not something this source addresses either way, and
nothing here should be cited for it.)*
**Does not establish:**
@@ -170,7 +203,15 @@ proceeding appears to appoint or host the mediator.
**Published instead** — `src/data/site.ts`, `PRACTICE_AREAS` → `insurance`:
> Accident benefits and SABS entitlement, MIG disputes, and private mediation
> alongside a LAT application, before filing or after.
> retained by the parties, not the Tribunal's case conference.
*(Corrected 2026-08-29. The blurb read "…and private mediation alongside a LAT
application, before filing or after", and the "before filing or after" half
rested entirely on the gloss corrected above. The replacement carries the
distinction `docs/01` actually requires — **private, retained by the parties,
not the Tribunal's case conference** — which is the high-value half and is fully
supported. The Tribunal's own sentence about mediation before applying is quoted
on the page rather than compressed into a card.)*
`docs/01` keeps `LAT pre-hearing mediation` as a **search intent** — people do
type it — with a note that it must never be lifted into copy. That lift is
docs/reference/ontario-construction-act.md
+433
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,433 @@
# Ontario Construction Act — adjudication, prompt payment, liens; and the two nuclear programmes named in docs/01
Committed under AGENTS.md R14 and the CLAUDE.md rule it encodes: **anything a
spec makes a claim about must be reachable from the repository.** Every fact
the six `/practice/*` pages state about the world is checkable here or it is
not published.
**Retrieved 2026-08-29.** Fetched from the primary sources listed below and
extracted with quotations pasted verbatim. This file is the artefact; the pages
cite it. Do not paraphrase a fact into a page that is not stated here.
> ⚠️ **A statute, a regulation and a tribunal page all move.** Every consolidation
> date and effective date below is as at the retrieval date and nothing more.
> Re-check before cutover, and before any republish that turns on one of them.
**Topic as researched:** Ontario construction dispute resolution — the statutory machinery (Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30); plus verification of the OPG Darlington New Nuclear Project and Bruce Power's Bruce C Project
---
## Sources
| Kind | Source | URL |
|---|---|---|
| statute | Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 — Ontario e-Laws (current consolidation). NOTE ON RETRIEVAL: the e-Laws page is a JavaScript single-page app; a plain fetch returns an empty shell. The statute text quoted here was retrieved from the JSON API that backs that page: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/statute/90c30 (HTTP 200, 374,864 bytes). | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30> |
| statute | Ontario e-Laws — version list for R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 (JSON API backing the 'Versions' tab of https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30). Shows the title carried by each historical consolidation of the same chapter. | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-versions/statute/90c30> |
| statute | Construction Lien Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 — historical e-Laws consolidation, version 8 (period 14 December 2017 to 30 June 2018). Retrieved via https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/statute/90c30/v8 | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30/v8> |
| statute | Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 — historical e-Laws consolidation, version 9 (period beginning 1 July 2018). Retrieved via https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/statute/90c30/v9 | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30/v9> |
| statute | Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 24 - Bill 142 — Ontario e-Laws. Retrieved via https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/statute/S17024 | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/S17024> |
| regulation | O. Reg. 264/25 — ADJUDICATIONS UNDER PART II.1 OF THE ACT (made under the Construction Act). Ontario e-Laws; consolidation period from January 1, 2026; 'No amendments.' Retrieved via https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/regulation/250264 | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/250264> |
| institution | Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contracts (ODACC) — home page | <https://odacc.ca/en/> |
| institution | ODACC — About Us | <https://odacc.ca/en/aboutus/> |
| institution | ODACC — Adjudication Process | <https://odacc.ca/en/adjudication-process/> |
| institution | ODACC 2025 Annual Report (PDF, 37 pages) — the annual report ODACC is required to publish as Authorized Nominating Authority | <https://odacc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2025-ODACC-Annual-Report-Final.pdf> |
| proponent | Small modular reactors / Darlington SMR – Ontario Power Generation (proponent's own page). NOTE ON RETRIEVAL: opg.com returned HTTP 403 (Cloudflare bot block) to both direct curl and WebFetch on 2026-08-29; the page text quoted here was obtained through the r.jina.ai HTML-to-text reader proxy (https://r.jina.ai/https://www.opg.com/projects-services/projects/nuclear/smr/darlington-smr/, HTTP 200). Key facts are independently corroborated by the CNSC page listed below. A human should re-read the OPG page in a browser before any of this wording is published. | <https://www.opg.com/projects-services/projects/nuclear/smr/darlington-smr/> |
| regulator | Darlington New Nuclear Project — Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (federal nuclear regulator) | <https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/reactors/new-reactor-power-plant-projects/new-reactor-power-plant-facilities/darlington-new-nuclear-project/> |
| proponent | The Bruce C Project — Bruce Power (proponent's own page) | <https://www.brucepower.com/the-bruce-c-project/> |
| proponent | Bruce C Project — Engage Bruce Power (Bruce Power's own engagement platform). NOTE: WebFetch returned 403; retrieved with curl sending a browser User-Agent (HTTP 200, 62,728 bytes). | <https://engage.brucepower.com/brucec> |
| proponent | Planning phase of Integrated Impact Assessment completed for Bruce Power's potential Bruce C project — Bruce Power newsroom, dated 2025-08-21 (proponent's own release) | <https://www.brucepower.com/2025/08/21/planning-phase-of-integrated-impact-assessment-completed-for-bruce-powers-potential-bruce-c-project/> |
---
## Verbatim quotations
### Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 — Ontario e-Laws (current consolidation). NOTE ON RETRIEVAL: the e-Laws page is a JavaScript single-page app; a plain fetch returns an empty shell. The statute text quoted here was retrieved from the JSON API that backs that page: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/statute/90c30 (HTTP 200, 374,864 bytes).
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30
> R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.30
> Consolidation Period: From January 1, 2026 to the e-Laws currency date.
> Last amendment: 2025, c. 14, Sched. 2.
> PART I.1 PROMPT PAYMENT
> PART II.1 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE INTERIM ADJUDICATION
> PART V EXPIRY, PRESERVATION AND PERFECTION OF LIENS
> Expiry of liens 31 (1) Unless preserved under section 34, the liens arising from the supply of services or materials to an improvement expire as provided in this section. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, s. 31 (1); 2017, c. 24, s. 67.
> Contractor’s liens (2) Subject to subsection (4), the lien of a contractor, (a) for services or materials supplied to an improvement on or before the date certified or declared to be the date of the substantial performance of the contract, expires at the conclusion of the 60-day period next following the occurrence of the earlier of, (i) the date on which a copy of the certificate or declaration of the substantial performance of the contract is published as provided in section 32, and (ii) the date the contract is completed, abandoned or terminated; and (b) for services or materials supplied to the improvement where there is no certification or declaration of the substantial performance of the contract, or for services or materials supplied to the improvement after the date certified or declared to be the date of substantial performance, expires at the conclusion of the 60-day period next following the occurrence of the earlier of, (i) the date the contract is completed, and (ii) the date the contract is abandoned or terminated. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, s. 31 (2); 2017, c. 24, s. 26 (1-5), 66.
> Liens of other persons (3) Subject to subsection (4), the lien of any other person, (a) for services or materials supplied to an improvement on or before the date certified or declared to be the date of the substantial performance of the contract, expires at the conclusion of the 60-day period next following the occurrence of the earliest of, (i) the date on which a copy of the certificate or declaration of the substantial performance of the contract is published, as provided in section 32, (ii) the date on which the person last supplies services or materials to the improvement, (ii.1) the date the contract is completed, abandoned or terminated, and (iii) the date a subcontract is certified to be completed under section 33, where the services or materials were supplied under or in respect of that subcontract
> Notice of termination (6) No later than seven days after a contract is terminated, either the owner or the contractor or other person whose lien is subject to expiry shall publish a notice of the termination in the prescribed form and manner. 2025, c. 14, Sched. 2, s. 6.
> 34 (1) A lien may be preserved during the supplying of services or materials or at any time before it expires, (a) where the lien attaches to the premises, by the registration in the proper land registry office of a claim for lien on the title of the premises in accordance with this Part; and (b) where the lien does not attach to the premises, by giving to the owner a copy of the claim for lien. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, s. 34 (1); 2010, c. 16, Sched. 2, s. 2 (5); 2017, c. 24, s. 63, 64, 68, 70, 71.
> What liens may be perfected 36 (1) A lien may not be perfected unless it is preserved. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, s. 36 (1).
> Expiry of preserved lien (2) A lien that has been preserved expires unless it is perfected prior to the end of the 90-day period next following the last day, under section 31, on which the lien could have been preserved. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, s. 36 (2); 2017, c. 24, s. 31 (1).
> How lien perfected (3) A lien claimant perfects the lien claimant’s preserved lien, (a) where the lien attaches to the premises, when the lien claimant commences an action to enforce the lien and, except where an order to vacate the registration of the lien is made, the lien claimant registers a certificate of action in the prescribed form on the title of the premises; or (b) where the lien does not attach to the premises, when the lien claimant commences an action to enforce the lien.
> Expiry of perfected lien 37 (1) A perfected lien expires immediately after the second anniversary of the commencement of the action that perfected the lien, unless one of the following occurs on or before that anniversary: 1. An order is made for the trial of an action in which the lien may be enforced. 2. An action in which the lien may be enforced is set down for trial. 1994, c. 27, s. 42 (1).
> Giving of proper invoices 6.3 (1) Proper invoices shall be given to an owner on a monthly basis, unless the contract provides otherwise. 2017, c. 24, s. 7.
> Payment deadline, owner to contractor 6.4 (1) Subject to the giving of a notice of non-payment under subsection (2), an owner shall pay the amount payable under a proper invoice no later than 28 days after receiving the proper invoice from the contractor. 2017, c. 24, s. 7.
> Exception, notice of non-payment if dispute (2) An owner who disputes a proper invoice may refuse to pay all or any portion of the amount payable under the proper invoice within the time specified in subsection (1) if, no later than 14 days after receiving the proper invoice from the contractor, the owner gives to the contractor a notice of non-payment, in the prescribed form and manner, specifying the amount of the proper invoice that is not being paid and detailing all of the reasons for non-payment. 2017, c. 24, s. 7.
> Payment deadlines, contractor to subcontractor Full payment 6.5 (1) Subject to the giving of a notice of non-payment under subsection (6), a contractor who receives full payment of a proper invoice within the time specified in subsection 6.4 (1) shall, no later than seven days after receiving payment, pay each subcontractor who supplied services or materials under a subcontract with the contractor that were included in the proper invoice the amount payable to the subcontractor. 2017, c. 24, s. 7.
> Non or partial payment, unpaid amount (4) Subject to the giving of a notice of non-payment under subsection (5) or (6), if the owner does not pay some or all of a proper invoice within the time specified in subsection 6.4 (1), the contractor shall, no later than 35 days after giving the proper invoice to the owner, pay each subcontractor who supplied services or materials under a subcontract with the contractor that were included in the proper invoice the amount payable to the subcontractor, to the extent that he or she was not paid fully under subsection (2). 2017, c. 24, s. 7.
> (iii) providing an undertaking to refer the matter to adjudication under Part II.1 no later than 21 days after giving the notice to the subcontractor
> 6.6 (1) Subject to the giving of a notice of non-payment under subsection (7), a subcontractor who receives full payment from a contractor in respect of a proper invoice within the time specified in subsection 6.5 (1) shall, no later than seven days after receiving payment, pay each subcontractor who supplied services or materials under a subcontract between them that were included in the proper invoice the amount payable to the subcontractor. 2017, c. 24, s. 7.
> Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y) 2017, c. 24, s. 7 - 01/10/2019
> Definitions 13.1 In this Part, “adjudication” means construction dispute interim adjudication under this Part; (“arbitrage intérimaire”) “adjudicator” means a registry adjudicator or a private adjudicator; (“arbitre intérimaire”) “Authority” means the Authorized Nominating Authority designated under section 13.2; (“Autorité”)
> Authorized Nominating Authority 13.2 (1) The Minister may designate an entity to act as Authorized Nominating Authority for the purposes of this Part. 2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1); 2025, c. 14, Sched. 2, s. 2.
> Duties and powers of Authority Duties 13.3 (1) The Authority shall, (a) develop and oversee programs for the training of persons as registry adjudicators and as private adjudicators; (b) qualify persons who meet the prescribed requirements as registry adjudicators and as private adjudicators; (c) establish and maintain a publicly available registry of registry adjudicators; (d) appoint registry adjudicators for the purposes of subsection 13.9 (5); and (e) perform any other duties of the Authority set out in this Part or that may be prescribed for the purposes of this Part.
> Availability of adjudication Contract 13.5 (1) Subject to subsection (3), a party to a contract may refer a dispute with the other party to the contract respecting any prescribed matter or any matter agreed to by the parties to adjudication. 2024, c. 20, Sched. 4, s. 12 (1).
> Subcontract (2) Subject to subsection (3.1), a party to a subcontract may refer a dispute with the other party to the subcontract respecting any prescribed matter or any matter agreed to by the parties to adjudication. 2024, c. 20, Sched. 4, s. 12 (1).
> Expiry of adjudication period, contract (3) An adjudication in respect of a contract may not be commenced if the notice of adjudication is given more than 90 days after the date on which the contract is completed, abandoned or terminated, unless the parties to the adjudication agree otherwise. 2024, c. 20, Sched. 4, s. 12 (1).
> Multiple disputes only on consent (4) An adjudication may only address a single dispute, unless the parties to the adjudication and the adjudicator agree otherwise.
> Application despite other proceeding (5) A party may refer a dispute to adjudication under this Part even if the dispute is the subject of a court action or of an arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991, unless the action or arbitration has been finally determined. 2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1); 2024, c. 20, Sched. 4, s. 12 (3).
> 13.11 No later than five days after an adjudicator agrees or is appointed to conduct the adjudication, the party who gave the notice of adjudication shall, (a) provide to the adjudicator a copy of the notice; and (b) provide to the adjudicator and to the other party a copy of the contract or subcontract and any documents the party intends to rely on during the adjudication. 2018, c. 17, Sched. 8, s. 6.
> Determination 13.13 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an adjudicator shall make a determination of the matter that is the subject of an adjudication no later than 30 days after receiving the documents required by section 13.11. 2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1).
> Extension (2) The deadline for an adjudicator’s determination may be extended, at any time before its expiry and after the provision of documents to the adjudicator under section 13.11, (a) on the adjudicator’s request, with the written consent of the parties to the adjudication, for a period of no more than 14 days; or (b) on the written agreement of the parties to the adjudication, subject to the adjudicator’s consent, for the period specified in the agreement. 2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1).
> Delayed determination (5) A determination made by an adjudicator after the date determined under subsection (1) or (2) is of no force or effect. 2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1).
> Written reasons (6) The adjudicator’s determination shall be in writing and shall include reasons for the determination. 2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1).
> Effect of determination 13.15 (1) The determination of a matter by an adjudicator is binding on the parties to the adjudication until a determination of the matter by a court, a determination of the matter by way of an arbitration conducted under the Arbitration Act, 1991, or a written agreement between the parties respecting the matter. 2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1).
> Authority of court, arbitrator (2) Subject to section 13.18, nothing in this Part restricts the authority of a court or of an arbitrator acting under the Arbitration Act, 1991 to consider the merits of a matter determined by an adjudicator. 2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1).
> 13.18 (1) An application for judicial review of a determination of an adjudicator may only be made with leave of the Divisional Court in accordance with this section and the rules of court. 2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1).
> Enforcement of amounts payable (2) A party who is required under the determination of an adjudicator to pay an amount to another person shall pay the amount no later than 15 days after the determination has been communicated to the parties to the adjudication. 2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1); 2024, c. 20, Sched. 4, s. 23 (1).
> Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y) 2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1) - 01/10/2019
> Persons who may be let in (6) The court may allow any person with a perfected lien, (a) who was not served with a notice of trial; or (b) whose action was stayed by reason of an order under the Arbitration Act, 1991, to be let in to prove the claim at any time before the amount realized in the action for the satisfaction of the lien has been distributed
> Transition, Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 87.3 (1) This Act and the regulations, as they read on June 29, 2018, continue to apply with respect to an improvement if,
### Ontario e-Laws — version list for R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 (JSON API backing the 'Versions' tab of https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30). Shows the title carried by each historical consolidation of the same chapter.
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-versions/statute/90c30> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> "title": {"en": "Construction Lien Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30"}, "dateFrom": {"en": "2017-12-14T05:00:00.000Z"}, "dateTo": {"en": "2018-06-30T04:00:00.000Z"}, "alias": {"en": "statute/90c30/v8"}
> "title": {"en": "Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30"}, "dateFrom": {"en": "2018-07-01T04:00:00.000Z"}, "dateTo": {"en": "2018-12-05T05:00:00.000Z"}, "alias": {"en": "statute/90c30/v9"}
> "title": {"en": "Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30"}, "dateFrom": {"en": "2026-01-01T05:00:00.000Z"}, "state": {"en": "current"}, "alias": {"en": "statute/90c30"}
### Construction Lien Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 — historical e-Laws consolidation, version 8 (period 14 December 2017 to 30 June 2018). Retrieved via https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/statute/90c30/v8
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30/v8> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> title: Construction Lien Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30
> shortTitle: Construction Lien Act
> chapter: R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.30
### Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 — historical e-Laws consolidation, version 9 (period beginning 1 July 2018). Retrieved via https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/statute/90c30/v9
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30/v9> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> title: Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30
> shortTitle: Construction Act
> chapter: R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.30
### Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 24 - Bill 142 — Ontario e-Laws. Retrieved via https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/statute/S17024
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/S17024> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 24 - Bill 142
> Assented to December 12, 2017
> 1 The short title of the Construction Lien Act is repealed and the following substituted: Construction Act
> Commencement 86 (1) Subject to subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), this Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. (2) The following provisions come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor: 1. Section 1.
> 75 Subsection 103 (3) of the Courts of Justice Act is amended by striking out “Construction Lien Act” at the end and substituting “Construction Act”.
> 77 (1) The Schedule to the Limitations Act, 2002 is amended by striking out “Construction Lien Act” in the column titled “Act” and substituting “Construction Act”.
> 87 The short title of this Act is the Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017.
### O. Reg. 264/25 — ADJUDICATIONS UNDER PART II.1 OF THE ACT (made under the Construction Act). Ontario e-Laws; consolidation period from January 1, 2026; 'No amendments.' Retrieved via https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/regulation/250264
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/250264> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ADJUDICATIONS UNDER PART II.1 OF THE ACT
> Adjudication Availability 19. (1) The following matters are prescribed for the purposes of subsection 13.5 (1) of the Act: 1. The valuation of services or materials provided under the contract. 2. Payment under the contract, including in respect of a change order, whether approved or not, or a proposed change order. 3. A dispute that is the subject of a notice of non-payment under Part I.1 of the Act. 4. Amounts retained under section 12 of the Act (set-off by trustee) or under subsection 17 (3) of the Act (lien set-off). 5. Payment of a holdback under section 26 of the Act. 6. Any of the following matters, if it is reasonably necessary to resolve a dispute respecting the matter in order to make a determination on any other matter that may be adjudicated: i. The scope of work required to be performed under the contract. ii. A request for a change in the contract price. iii. A request for an extension of time in the completion of work required to be performed under the contract.
> (2) The matters listed in subsection (1), with necessary modifications, are prescribed for the purposes of subsection 13.5 (2) of the Act.
> Designation 2. (1) To be eligible to be designated to act as Authorized Nominating Authority, an entity must, (a) submit an application to the Minister in the time and manner specified by the Minister; and (b) agree in writing to abide by any conditions of designation specified by the Minister, including any conditions respecting the term or termination of any such designation.
> Notice of adjudication, copy to Authority 20. A party to a contract or subcontract who gives a notice of adjudication under subsection 13.7 (1) of the Act shall, on the same day, provide a copy of the notice in electronic format to the Authority.
### Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contracts (ODACC) — home page
<https://odacc.ca/en/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contracts (“ODACC”) is the Authorized Nominating Authority (“ANA”) under the Construction Act. As the ANA, ODACC is responsible for administering construction-related adjudications and for training and qualifying Adjudicators. ODACC derives its powers from the Construction Act and Ontario Regulation 264/25
> Adjudication and prompt payment provisions of the Construction Act came into force on October 1, 2019. Further amendments to the Construction Act came into force on January 1, 2026. ODACC is responsible for administering adjudications and for training and certifying adjudicators.
> Only Adjudicators listed in the Adjudicator Registry are permitted to conduct adjudications and make Determinations under the Construction Act.
> The adjudication process commences when the Claimant provides the Respondent with a Notice of Adjudication (and sends ODACC an electronic copy).
### ODACC — About Us
<https://odacc.ca/en/aboutus/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contracts (“ODACC”) is the Authorized Nominating Authority (“ANA”) under the Construction Act. As the ANA, ODACC is responsible for administering construction-related adjudications and for training and qualifying Adjudicators.
> Further duties and powers of ODACC are listed in sections 6 through 18 of Ontario Regulation 264/25.
### ODACC — Adjudication Process
<https://odacc.ca/en/adjudication-process/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Adjudication is a dispute resolution process that allows Parties to present their dispute to an independent third party for a decision.
> The Adjudicator will consider the evidence and make a decision (a “Determination”) within thirty days of the Claimant submitting its supporting documents. If the Adjudicator orders a Party to pay the other Party, the payment must be made within fifteen days of the issuing of the Determination.
> Adjudications are quick. After an Adjudicator receives the Claimant’s documents, the Adjudicator must render a Determination no later than 30 days after receiving the Claimant’s documents (unless the Determination due date is extended);
> Determinations are binding only until a decision is made in a subsequent proceeding. Either Party can commence a proceeding in court or through arbitration. The Determination is binding until a final decision is made in the subsequent proceeding;
> Adjudication is available as a right. A Party to a construction contract can commence an adjudication without the other Party’s consent
> An adjudication may only be conducted by a certified ODACC Adjudicator.
### ODACC 2025 Annual Report (PDF, 37 pages) — the annual report ODACC is required to publish as Authorized Nominating Authority
<https://odacc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2025-ODACC-Annual-Report-Final.pdf> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> ODACC is the Authorized Nominating Authority (the “ANA”) under the Ontario Construction Act and is responsible for administering construction-related Adjudications and for training and qualifying Adjudicators.
> The Adjudication and Prompt Payment provisions of the Construction Act came into force on October 1, 2019.
> ODACC is pleased to provide this report on the sixth year of its operation for the fiscal year August 1, 2024, to July 31, 2025 (the “2025 Fiscal Year”).
### Small modular reactors | Darlington SMR – Ontario Power Generation (proponent's own page). NOTE ON RETRIEVAL: opg.com returned HTTP 403 (Cloudflare bot block) to both direct curl and WebFetch on 2026-08-29; the page text quoted here was obtained through the r.jina.ai HTML-to-text reader proxy (https://r.jina.ai/https://www.opg.com/projects-services/projects/nuclear/smr/darlington-smr/, HTTP 200). Key facts are independently corroborated by the CNSC page listed below. A human should re-read the OPG page in a browser before any of this wording is published.
<https://www.opg.com/projects-services/projects/nuclear/smr/darlington-smr/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> The Darlington New Nuclear Project is leading the way in the advancement of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology in Canada – the future of nuclear power generation.
> On July 7, 2023, the Ontario government announced it will work with Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to commence planning and licensing for three additional SMRs, for a total of four SMRs at the Darlington new nuclear site.
> In March 2026, OPG applied to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for a Licence to Operate (LTO) the first SMR. The LTO is the regulatory approval required to complete commissioning and safely operate the reactor, once construction is complete.
> OPG’s application for this licence is comprised of a number of packages, submitted to the CNSC over the course of several months. This application process will culminate in a public hearing where the regulator will hear comments from members of the public regarding our application.
> Site construction progress - Summer 2026
> The construction of the reactor building is now progressing upwards towards grade following the successful basemat (the foundation of the Unit 1 reactor building) installation earlier this year.
> Additional regulatory approvals will be required prior to construction and operation of additional units.
> Our planning goal is to complete construction of the first SMR by the end of this decade, and connect to the grid by the end of 2030.
### Darlington New Nuclear Project — Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (federal nuclear regulator)
<https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/reactors/new-reactor-power-plant-projects/new-reactor-power-plant-facilities/darlington-new-nuclear-project/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> The site is owned by Ontario Power Generation (OPG).
> The BWRX-300 is a 300 MWe water-cooled, natural circulation small modular reactor.
> OPG applied for a licence to construct 1 BWRX-300 reactor in October 2022 and was granted the licence in April 2025.
> In March 2026, OPG applied for a 20-year licence to operate 1 BWRX-300 reactor and an associated low- and intermediate-level waste storage structure.
> Current status: 1 unit under construction
> The CNSC has verified that the commitments for RHP-1 (for installation of the reactor building foundation) were met, and the hold point was removed on March 30, 2026.
### The Bruce C Project — Bruce Power (proponent's own page)
<https://www.brucepower.com/the-bruce-c-project/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> As Ontario prepares for the future through its Integrated Energy Plan, Bruce Power has initiated a federal Impact Assessment (IA) for the Bruce C Project. The project aims to create an option to build up to 4,800 megawatts of nuclear capacity at the Bruce Power site, located within the Territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, in the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.
> Bruce Power is advancing the IA process in a proactive, open and transparent manner to engage Indigenous Peoples, local communities, interested parties and the public early on.
### Bruce C Project — Engage Bruce Power (Bruce Power's own engagement platform). NOTE: WebFetch returned 403; retrieved with curl sending a browser User-Agent (HTTP 200, 62,728 bytes).
<https://engage.brucepower.com/brucec> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> The Bruce C Project is creating the option to build up to 4,800 MW of nuclear capacity on the existing Bruce Power site.
> Through the federal integrated Impact Assessment (IA) process led by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) alongside the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Bruce Power is studying the potential environmental, economic, social and health impacts of a new nuclear build.
> IN PROGRESS — In the Impact Statement phase, the Bruce C Project team will prepare the Impact Statement
> UPCOMING — In the Impact Assessment Phase phase, the Review Panel will prepare hearing materials and public hearings will be held.
> COMPLETED — During the Planning phase, the Bruce C Project team: Engaged with Indigenous Nations and Communities, local municipalities and the public on project information.
> At the completion of the Planning Phase, Bruce Power received the Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Planning Phase documents from the IAAC and CNSC, which defines the requirements for Bruce Power to include in the Impact Statement and Licence to Prepare Site Application.
> Reactor technology has not been selected at this time, and the Impact Assessment for the Bruce C Project will be technology neutral. This approach considers multiple technologies to provide optionality to the province in long-term electricity system planning.
> Bruce Power has commenced a siting assessment to understand potential constraints and opportunities on the Bruce Power site, support conceptual layout development, and evaluate suitable areas for potential development.
### Planning phase of Integrated Impact Assessment completed for Bruce Power's potential Bruce C project — Bruce Power newsroom, dated 2025-08-21 (proponent's own release)
<https://www.brucepower.com/2025/08/21/planning-phase-of-integrated-impact-assessment-completed-for-bruce-powers-potential-bruce-c-project/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> The planning phase of the federal Integrated Impact Assessment process has been completed for Bruce Power’s Bruce C project.
> On August 19, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), in collaboration with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), issued the formal Notice of Commencement of Impact Assessment under the Impact Assessment Act. This notice initiates the next stage of the process, the development of the Impact Statement, and is accompanied by Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) and documents that will shape the scope and depth of the assessment moving forward.
> The planning phase is the first of the five phases in Impact Assessment process.
---
## What this establishes
Each item names the source it rests on. An item here that no quotation above
supports is a defect in this file, not a fact.
- The statute's current name and citation is the Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30. The e-Laws consolidation retrieved on 2026-08-29 states 'Consolidation Period: From January 1, 2026 to the e-Laws currency date' and 'Last amendment: 2025, c. 14, Sched. 2.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- The Construction Act did not replace the Construction Lien Act with a new statute — it IS the same statute renamed. Section 1 of the Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 24 (assented to December 12, 2017) reads: '1 The short title of the Construction Lien Act is repealed and the following substituted: Construction Act'. The chapter number is unchanged (R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30) across the rename.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/S17024>
- The rename took effect on 1 July 2018. e-Laws' own version list for R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 shows version 8 titled 'Construction Lien Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30' running to 2018-06-30, and version 9 titled 'Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30' beginning 2018-07-01.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-versions/statute/90c30>
- The historical e-Laws consolidation at /laws/statute/90c30/v8 carries the short title 'Construction Lien Act' and the chapter 'R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.30'; the next consolidation, /laws/statute/90c30/v9, carries the short title 'Construction Act' and the same chapter.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30/v9>
- LIEN PRESERVATION — the deadline is set by s. 31 (headed 'Expiry of liens'), read with s. 34 ('A lien may be preserved during the supplying of services or materials or at any time before it expires'). Under s. 31(2) a contractor's lien 'expires at the conclusion of the 60-day period next following' publication of the certificate/declaration of substantial performance or, where earlier, completion, abandonment or termination of the contract; where there is no certification or declaration, the 60-day period runs from the earlier of completion and abandonment or termination. Section 31(3) applies the same 60-day period to the lien of 'any other person' (running from the earliest of publication, last supply, completion/abandonment/termination, or certification of the subcontract as complete under s. 33). Section 31(2.1) applies the same 60-day period to a workers' trust fund lien.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- HOW A LIEN IS PRESERVED — s. 34(1): where the lien attaches to the premises, 'by the registration in the proper land registry office of a claim for lien on the title of the premises'; where it does not attach, 'by giving to the owner a copy of the claim for lien.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- LIEN PERFECTION — s. 36(1): 'A lien may not be perfected unless it is preserved.' Section 36(2): 'A lien that has been preserved expires unless it is perfected prior to the end of the 90-day period next following the last day, under section 31, on which the lien could have been preserved.' Section 36(3) defines perfection as commencing an action to enforce the lien and (where the lien attaches to the premises) registering a certificate of action on title.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- A perfected lien has a further limit: s. 37(1) provides that it 'expires immediately after the second anniversary of the commencement of the action that perfected the lien' unless an order is made for the trial of an action in which the lien may be enforced, or such an action is set down for trial, on or before that anniversary.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- As of the 1 January 2026 consolidation, s. 31(6) (added by 2025, c. 14, Sched. 2, s. 6) requires that 'No later than seven days after a contract is terminated, either the owner or the contractor or other person whose lien is subject to expiry shall publish a notice of the termination in the prescribed form and manner', and s. 31(7) fixes the publication date as the termination date for the purposes of s. 31.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- INTERIM ADJUDICATION — Ontario does have statutory construction adjudication. It sits in Part II.1 of the Construction Act, headed 'CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE INTERIM ADJUDICATION' (ss. 13.1–13.23). Section 13.1 defines 'adjudication' as 'construction dispute interim adjudication under this Part'.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- Section 13.2(1) provides that 'The Minister may designate an entity to act as Authorized Nominating Authority for the purposes of this Part', and s. 13.1 defines 'Authority' as 'the Authorized Nominating Authority designated under section 13.2'. The Act itself does not name the designated entity.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- The Authorized Nominating Authority is Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contracts (ODACC). ODACC states on its own site: 'Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contracts ("ODACC") is the Authorized Nominating Authority ("ANA") under the Construction Act. As the ANA, ODACC is responsible for administering construction-related adjudications and for training and qualifying Adjudicators.'
*Source:* <https://odacc.ca/en/aboutus/>
- ODACC repeats the same statement in its own 2025 Annual Report (the report it is required to publish as ANA), which describes the fiscal year 1 August 2024 to 31 July 2025 as 'the sixth year of its operation'.
*Source:* <https://odacc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2025-ODACC-Annual-Report-Final.pdf>
- The Part II.1 (adjudication) and Part I.1 (prompt payment) provisions came into force on 1 October 2019. The Act's own in-force notes record '2017, c. 24, s. 11 (1) - 01/10/2019' against the Part II.1 sections and '2017, c. 24, s. 7 - 01/10/2019' against the Part I.1 sections. ODACC states the same date: 'Adjudication and prompt payment provisions of the Construction Act came into force on October 1, 2019.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- WHAT MAY BE ADJUDICATED — s. 13.5(1) (as amended effective 1 January 2026) permits a party to a contract to refer a dispute 'respecting any prescribed matter or any matter agreed to by the parties' to adjudication; s. 13.5(2) does the same for subcontracts. The prescribed matters are set out in O. Reg. 264/25, s. 19(1): the valuation of services or materials provided under the contract; payment under the contract, including in respect of a change order (approved or not) or a proposed change order; a dispute that is the subject of a notice of non-payment under Part I.1; amounts retained under s. 12 (set-off by trustee) or s. 17(3) (lien set-off); payment of a holdback under s. 26; and — only where reasonably necessary to resolve another adjudicable matter — the scope of work, a request for a change in the contract price, and a request for an extension of time.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/250264>
- Adjudication is time-limited at the front end: s. 13.5(3) bars an adjudication in respect of a contract 'if the notice of adjudication is given more than 90 days after the date on which the contract is completed, abandoned or terminated, unless the parties to the adjudication agree otherwise', with a parallel rule for subcontracts in s. 13.5(3.1). Section 13.5(4) limits an adjudication to 'a single dispute, unless the parties to the adjudication and the adjudicator agree otherwise.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- STATUTORY TIMELINE FOR A DETERMINATION — s. 13.13(1): 'an adjudicator shall make a determination of the matter that is the subject of an adjudication no later than 30 days after receiving the documents required by section 13.11.' Section 13.11 requires the party who gave the notice of adjudication to provide those documents 'No later than five days after an adjudicator agrees or is appointed to conduct the adjudication'. Section 13.13(2) permits extension — up to 14 days on the adjudicator's request with the parties' written consent, or for a period agreed in writing by the parties with the adjudicator's consent. Section 13.13(5): 'A determination made by an adjudicator after the date determined under subsection (1) or (2) is of no force or effect.' Section 13.13(6) requires the determination to be in writing with reasons.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- A determined amount must be paid 'no later than 15 days after the determination has been communicated to the parties to the adjudication' (s. 13.19(2)). Judicial review of a determination is available only with leave of the Divisional Court (s. 13.18(1)).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- PROMPT PAYMENT (Part I.1) — proper invoices 'shall be given to an owner on a monthly basis, unless the contract provides otherwise' (s. 6.3(1)). Owner to contractor: payment 'no later than 28 days after receiving the proper invoice from the contractor' (s. 6.4(1)), unless the owner gives a notice of non-payment 'no later than 14 days after receiving the proper invoice' (s. 6.4(2)).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- PROMPT PAYMENT, down the chain — contractor to subcontractor: where the contractor is paid in full within the s. 6.4(1) time, it must pay each subcontractor 'no later than seven days after receiving payment' (s. 6.5(1)), and the same seven days applies to partial payment received (s. 6.5(2)). Where the owner does not pay, the contractor must pay its subcontractors 'no later than 35 days after giving the proper invoice to the owner' (s. 6.5(4)) unless it gives a notice of non-payment; that notice must include 'an undertaking to refer the matter to adjudication under Part II.1 no later than 21 days after giving the notice to the subcontractor' (s. 6.5(5)(a)(iii)). Subcontractor to sub-subcontractor: seven days after receiving payment (s. 6.6(1)).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- ARBITRATION — the Act contemplates arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991 in four places, all of them treating arbitration as the forum that supersedes an interim adjudication rather than as a process the Act itself creates: s. 13.5(5) (a dispute may be referred to adjudication 'even if the dispute is the subject of a court action or of an arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991, unless the action or arbitration has been finally determined'); s. 13.15(1) (an adjudicator's determination 'is binding on the parties to the adjudication until a determination of the matter by a court, a determination of the matter by way of an arbitration conducted under the Arbitration Act, 1991, or a written agreement between the parties'); s. 13.15(2) (nothing in Part II.1 restricts 'the authority of a court or of an arbitrator acting under the Arbitration Act, 1991 to consider the merits of a matter determined by an adjudicator'); and s. 62(6)(b) (a lien claimant 'whose action was stayed by reason of an order under the Arbitration Act, 1991' may be let in to prove the claim).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30>
- DARLINGTON — the Darlington New Nuclear Project is real and is Ontario Power Generation's. OPG's own page describes it as 'leading the way in the advancement of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology in Canada' and states that on 7 July 2023 the Ontario government announced it would work with OPG 'to commence planning and licensing for three additional SMRs, for a total of four SMRs at the Darlington new nuclear site.'
*Source:* <https://www.opg.com/projects-services/projects/nuclear/smr/darlington-smr/>
- DARLINGTON, status in the proponent's own words as at 2026-08-29: OPG's page states 'In March 2026, OPG applied to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for a Licence to Operate (LTO) the first SMR', that the application 'is comprised of a number of packages, submitted to the CNSC over the course of several months' and 'will culminate in a public hearing'. Under the heading 'Site construction progress - Summer 2026' it states 'The construction of the reactor building is now progressing upwards towards grade following the successful basemat (the foundation of the Unit 1 reactor building) installation earlier this year.' It adds that 'Additional regulatory approvals will be required prior to construction and operation of additional units.'
*Source:* <https://www.opg.com/projects-services/projects/nuclear/smr/darlington-smr/>
- DARLINGTON, corroborated by the regulator: the CNSC page states 'The site is owned by Ontario Power Generation (OPG)', 'The BWRX-300 is a 300 MWe water-cooled, natural circulation small modular reactor', 'OPG applied for a licence to construct 1 BWRX-300 reactor in October 2022 and was granted the licence in April 2025', 'In March 2026, OPG applied for a 20-year licence to operate 1 BWRX-300 reactor and an associated low- and intermediate-level waste storage structure', and 'Current status: 1 unit under construction'.
*Source:* <https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/reactors/new-reactor-power-plant-projects/new-reactor-power-plant-facilities/darlington-new-nuclear-project/>
- BRUCE C — the project is real and is Bruce Power's. Bruce Power's own page states 'Bruce Power has initiated a federal Impact Assessment (IA) for the Bruce C Project. The project aims to create an option to build up to 4,800 megawatts of nuclear capacity at the Bruce Power site, located within the Territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, in the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.'
*Source:* <https://www.brucepower.com/the-bruce-c-project/>
- BRUCE C, status in the proponent's own words as at 2026-08-29: Bruce Power's engagement site marks the Planning phase 'COMPLETED', the Impact Statement phase 'IN PROGRESS' ('In the Impact Statement phase, the Bruce C Project team will prepare the Impact Statement'), and the Impact Assessment phase 'UPCOMING' (Review Panel hearing materials and public hearings). It states 'At the completion of the Planning Phase, Bruce Power received the Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Planning Phase documents from the IAAC and CNSC'. Bruce Power's newsroom release of 2025-08-21 states 'The planning phase of the federal Integrated Impact Assessment process has been completed for Bruce Power's Bruce C project' and that on 19 August the IAAC with the CNSC 'issued the formal Notice of Commencement of Impact Assessment under the Impact Assessment Act'.
*Source:* <https://engage.brucepower.com/brucec>
- BRUCE C — no reactor technology has been chosen. Bruce Power states: 'Reactor technology has not been selected at this time, and the Impact Assessment for the Bruce C Project will be technology neutral.' It also states it 'has commenced a siting assessment' on the existing site. Bruce C is therefore at an assessment/optioning stage, not a construction stage — unlike Darlington, no construction licence exists.
*Source:* <https://engage.brucepower.com/brucec>
---
## What this does NOT establish
**Read this section before writing copy.** It is the half that keeps a page
honest, and on this project it is the half that has twice been skipped.
- **Does the Construction Act contemplate MEDIATION of construction disputes, and where?**
- *Searched:* Case-insensitive regex sweep for 'mediat' over the complete fetched text of the current consolidation (the full JSON payload from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/statute/90c30, 374,864 bytes, tags stripped), plus a read of the Part headings list and of Part VIII (Jurisdiction and Procedure).
- *Outcome:* NO MEDIATION PROVISION FOUND. The sweep returned exactly 2 matches and both were false positives — 'in the immediate vicinity of the premises' (s. 1 definition of 'improvement') and 'the year immediately preceding the anniversary' (s. 26.1(4), annual holdback release). Both matches were printed and read. On the text retrieved, the Construction Act contains no mediation provisions at all: no mediation Part, no mandatory or court-annexed mediation step, no mediator role. There is nothing to quote because there is nothing there. This is a confirmed negative, not an unsearched gap — but it is stated as an absence in the statute only. Whether mediation of construction disputes is required or available by some OTHER instrument (for example the Rules of Civil Procedure, O. Reg. 194/90, or a standard-form contract such as CCDC 2) was NOT searched and must not be inferred from this.
- **On what date, and by what instrument, was ODACC designated as the Authorized Nominating Authority?**
- *Searched:* O. Reg. 264/25 in full (searched for 'ODACC' and 'Ontario Dispute Adjudication' — zero matches; s. 2 sets designation eligibility criteria but names no entity); ODACC's home page, About Us page and 2025 Annual Report PDF (searched for 'designat', 'named', '2019'); s. 13.2 of the Act.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED. ODACC's designation is made by the Minister under s. 13.2(1), not by regulation, and no primary or institutional source retrieved states the designation date. ODACC's own pages assert only that it IS the ANA, with no date. A third-party law-firm/news source surfaced in search asserts 18 July 2019, but that was not fetched or verified and is NOT relied on here. Do not publish a designation date.
- **Verbatim confirmation of OPG's Darlington page by direct fetch of opg.com.**
- *Searched:* curl with a browser User-Agent and full navigation headers (HTTP 403, Cloudflare block, on both www.opg.com and opg.com); WebFetch on the same URL (HTTP 403). Text was then obtained through the r.jina.ai reader proxy (HTTP 200).
- *Outcome:* PARTIAL. The OPG content quoted above came through a third-party reader proxy rather than a direct fetch, so the exact wording carries one hop of risk. Every load-bearing fact in it (proponent, BWRX-300 technology, construction licence April 2025, operating licence application March 2026, one unit under construction) is independently confirmed by the CNSC regulator page, which WAS fetched directly. Before any OPG wording is quoted on a public page, open the OPG URL in a browser and confirm the sentence.
- **Whether the Darlington and Bruce C projects have any adjudication, lien, or prompt-payment activity under the Construction Act.**
- *Searched:* Not searched — outside the scope of the sources fetched.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED, and nothing above supports connecting these two projects to the Construction Act machinery. The projects were verified as real and their status recorded; no source retrieved links either project to any dispute, adjudication, lien or payment proceeding. Do not use them as examples of ADR work, of the practitioner's involvement, or of anything else beyond 'these projects exist and are at these stages'.
- **Whether the Construction Act's Part II.1 provisions quoted are affected by any not-yet-in-force amendment.**
- *Searched:* Searched the raw e-Laws payload for not-in-force markers ('not in force', 'ynote', NYIF classes). The consolidation's metadata flags "Contains 'not yet in force' provision sections".
- *Outcome:* MOSTLY CLEARED, with one caveat. Two not-in-force items were found, both amendments from 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 76 (1) and (2), attached to s. 1 and s. 34 — neither touches the periods or the Part II.1 text quoted above. However, the full NYIF set was not exhaustively mapped section by section. Anything published from this artefact should be re-checked against the live e-Laws page on the day of publication, since this consolidation is current only 'to the e-Laws currency date'.
---
## Searches run
- `WebFetch https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30 — returned an empty SPA shell ('e-Laws | Ontario.ca'), no statute text; recorded as a failed instrument rather than a null result`
- `curl https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c30 — HTTP 200, 54,243 bytes, but 0 matches for 'Construction'; confirmed the page is a React SPA`
- `curl https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c30/latest/rso-1990-c-c30.html — HTTP 403, blocked; CanLII not used`
- `Read the e-Laws JS bundle (/laws/static/js/main.dbd400db.js) to recover the API route pattern: legislation/{lang}/doc-search/{type}/{code}[/{version}]`
- `Probed five candidate e-Laws API shapes (all 404) before locating the correct route`
- `curl https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/doc-search/statute/90c30 — HTTP 200, 374,864 bytes, full current Construction Act`
- `curl .../doc-search/statute/S17024 — Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017`
- `curl .../doc-search/statute/90c30/v8 and /v9 — the last 'Construction Lien Act' consolidation and the first 'Construction Act' consolidation`
- `curl .../act-versions/statute/90c30 — all 22 historical versions with titles and date ranges`
- `curl .../doc-search/regulation/250264 (O. Reg. 264/25) and /250384 (O. Reg. 384/25)`
- `grep of the Act text for sections 31, 34, 36, 37, 6.1–6.6, 13.1–13.19, and for all Part headings`
- `Case-insensitive sweep of the full Act payload for 'mediat' (2 hits, both false positives, both printed and read) and for 'arbitrat' (4 hits, all printed and read)`
- `Sweep of the raw Act payload for not-yet-in-force markers`
- `WebFetch https://odacc.ca/en/ — ODACC home page`
- `curl https://odacc.ca/en/ , /en/aboutus/ , /en/adjudication-process/ , /en/annual-report/`
- `curl + pdftotext https://odacc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2025-ODACC-Annual-Report-Final.pdf (37 pages)`
- `WebFetch https://odacc.ca/en/about-us/ — HTTP 404 (wrong slug; correct slug is /en/aboutus/)`
- `WebSearch 'Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General designated ODACC Authorized Nominating Authority Construction Act' — only third-party sources for the designation date; not relied on`
- `WebSearch 'ontario.ca Construction Act renamed Construction Lien Act July 1 2018' — no primary source returned; the rename date was instead established from the e-Laws version list`
- `WebSearch 'OPG Darlington New Nuclear Project small modular reactor opg.com official page'`
- `curl and WebFetch https://www.opg.com/projects-services/projects/nuclear/smr/darlington-smr/ — HTTP 403 both, Cloudflare; retried via curl on bare opg.com (403) before falling back to r.jina.ai (HTTP 200)`
- `WebFetch https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/.../darlington-new-nuclear-project/ — regulator corroboration`
- `WebSearch 'Bruce Power Bruce C project site brucepower.com'`
- `curl https://www.brucepower.com/the-bruce-c-project/`
- `WebFetch https://engage.brucepower.com/brucec — HTTP 403; refetched with curl and a browser User-Agent, HTTP 200`
- `curl https://www.brucepower.com/2025/08/21/planning-phase-of-integrated-impact-assessment-completed-for-bruce-powers-potential-bruce-c-project/`
docs/reference/ontario-energy-regulatory.md
+514
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,514 @@
# Ontario energy — OEB leave to construct, IESO connection assessment, Bill 40 and the data-centre regime
Committed under AGENTS.md R14 and the CLAUDE.md rule it encodes: **anything a
spec makes a claim about must be reachable from the repository.** Every fact
the six `/practice/*` pages state about the world is checkable here or it is
not published.
**Retrieved 2026-08-29.** Fetched from the primary sources listed below and
extracted with quotations pasted verbatim. This file is the artefact; the pages
cite it. Do not paraphrase a fact into a page that is not stated here.
> ⚠️ **A statute, a regulation and a tribunal page all move.** Every consolidation
> date and effective date below is as at the retrieval date and nothing more.
> Re-check before cutover, and before any republish that turns on one of them.
**Topic as researched:** Ontario electricity/energy regulatory processes that generate disputes: OEB leave to construct (OEB Act, 1998 ss. 90/92/95/96), the IESO and market participation, the IESO connection assessment process (SIA/CIA), large-load and data-centre grid connection (Electricity Act, 1998 s. 28.1), and Ontario Bill 40
---
## Sources
| Kind | Source | URL |
|---|---|---|
| statute | Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. B — e-Laws (ontario.ca), Government of Ontario | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98o15> |
| statute | Electricity Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. A — e-Laws (ontario.ca), Government of Ontario | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98e15> |
| regulation | O. Reg. 161/99: DEFINITIONS AND EXEMPTIONS, under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 — e-Laws (ontario.ca) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/990161> |
| regulator | Leave to construct applications for priority transmission projects — Ontario Energy Board | <https://www.oeb.ca/applications/applications-oeb/leave-construct-applications-priority-transmission-projects> |
| regulator | Natural Gas Facilities Handbook — Ontario Energy Board | <https://www.oeb.ca/regulatory-rules-and-documents/rules-codes-and-requirements/natural-gas-facilities-handbook> |
| institution | Managing the Power System — IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator). Requested as https://www.ieso.ca/en/Learn/About-the-IESO/What-We-Do, which redirects here. | <https://ieso.ca/Learn/Ontario-Electricity-Grid/Managing-the-Power-System> |
| institution | Overview of the Connection Process — IESO | <https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Overview> |
| institution | Stage 2 – Obtain conditional approval to connect — IESO | <https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Obtain-Approval> |
| institution | Stage 4 – Authorize market and program participation — IESO | <https://www.ieso.ca/en/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Authorize-Market-and-Program-Participation> |
| institution | Frequently Asked Questions - Connection Process — IESO | <https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Frequently-Asked-Questions> |
| statute | Bill 40, Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, 2025 — Legislative Assembly of Ontario | <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-40> |
| statute | Bill 40 (44th Parliament, 1st Session) — Status — Legislative Assembly of Ontario | <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-40/status> |
| statute | Bill 40, Moving Ontarians Safely Act, 2023 — Legislative Assembly of Ontario | <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-40> |
| statute | Bill 40, Support for Adults in Need of Assistance Act, 2021 — Legislative Assembly of Ontario | <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-2/bill-40> |
| regulator | Economic and Strategic Assessment Framework for New Data Centres — Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO 026-0853), Ministry of Energy and Mines | <https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/026-0853> |
| regulator | New Requirements for Data Centres Seeking to Connect to the Electricity Grid in Ontario — Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO 025-1001), Ministry of Energy and Mines | <https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-1001> |
| regulator | Distribution System Code (DSC) — Ontario Energy Board | <https://www.oeb.ca/regulatory-rules-and-documents/rules-codes-and-requirements/distribution-system-code-dsc> |
---
## Verbatim quotations
### Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. B — e-Laws (ontario.ca), Government of Ontario
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98o15> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 / S.O. 1998, CHAPTER 15 / Schedule B
> Consolidation Period: From December 11, 2025 to the e-Laws currency date.
> Last amendment: 2025, c. 22, Sched. 3.
> PART VI — TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION LINES
> Definitions, Part VI — 89 In this Part, "electricity distribution line" means a line, transformers, plant or equipment used for conveying electricity at voltages of 50 kilovolts or less; ("ligne de distribution d'électricité")
> "electricity transmission line" means a line, transformers, plant or equipment used for conveying electricity at voltages higher than 50 kilovolts; ("ligne de transport d'électricité")
> "hydrocarbon line" means a pipe line carrying any hydrocarbon, other than a pipe line within an oil refinery, oil or petroleum storage depot, chemical processing plant or pipe line terminal or station; ("ligne pour hydrocarbures")
> "work" means a hydrocarbon line, electricity distribution line, electricity transmission line, interconnection or station. ("ouvrage") 1998, c. 15, Sched. B, s. 89; 2003, c. 3, s. 62.
> Leave to construct hydrocarbon line — 90 (1) No person shall construct a hydrocarbon line without first obtaining from the Board an order granting leave to construct the hydrocarbon line if, (a) the proposed hydrocarbon line is more than 20 kilometres in length; (b) the proposed hydrocarbon line is projected to cost more than the amount prescribed by the regulations; (c) any part of the proposed hydrocarbon line, (i) uses pipe that has a nominal pipe size of 12 inches or more, and (ii) has an operating pressure of 2,000 kilopascals or more; or (d) criteria prescribed by the regulations are met. 2003, c. 3, s. 63 (1).
> Exception — 90 (2) Subsection (1) applies to the relocation or reconstruction of a hydrocarbon line only if the conditions prescribed by the regulations are met. 2024, c. 16, Sched. 11, s. 1.
> Application for leave to construct hydrocarbon line or station — 91 (1) Any person may, before constructing a hydrocarbon line to which subsection 90 (1) does not apply or a station, apply to the Board for an order granting leave to construct the hydrocarbon line or station. 2024, c. 10, s. 6.
> Leave to construct, etc., electricity transmission or distribution line — 92 (1) No person shall construct, expand or reinforce an electricity transmission line or an electricity distribution line or make an interconnection without first obtaining from the Board an order granting leave to construct, expand or reinforce such line or interconnection. 1998, c. 15, Sched. B, s. 92 (1).
> Exception — 92 (2) Subsection (1) applies to the relocation or reconstruction of an existing electricity transmission line or electricity distribution line or interconnection where no expansion or reinforcement is involved only if the acquisition of additional land or authority to use additional land is necessary. 2024, c. 16, Sched. 11, s. 2.
> Route map — 94 An applicant for an order granting leave under this Part shall file with the application a map showing the general location of the proposed work and the municipalities, highways, railways, utility lines and navigable waters through, under, over, upon or across which the proposed work is to pass. 1998, c. 15, Sched. B, s. 94.
> Exemption, subs. 90 (1) or 92 (1) — 95 (1) The Board may, if in its opinion special circumstances of a particular case so require, make an order exempting any person from the requirements of subsection 90 (1) or 92 (1) without a hearing. 2024, c. 10, s. 7.
> Same, prescribed circumstances — 95 (2) The Board shall, with or without a hearing, make an order exempting a person from the requirements of subsection 90 (1) or 92 (1) if the Board is satisfied that the circumstances prescribed by the regulations have been met. 2024, c. 10, s. 7.
> Order allowing work to be carried out — 96 (1) If, after considering an application under section 90, 91 or 92 the Board is of the opinion that the construction, expansion or reinforcement of the proposed work is in the public interest, it shall make an order granting leave to carry out the work. 1998, c. 15, Sched. B, s. 96.
> Applications under s. 92 — 96 (2) In an application under section 92, the Board shall only consider the following when, under subsection (1), it considers whether the construction, expansion or reinforcement of the electricity transmission line or electricity distribution line, or the making of the interconnection, is in the public interest: 1. The interests of consumers with respect to prices and the reliability and quality of electricity service. 2. Supporting economic growth in a manner consistent with the policies of the Government of Ontario. 2009, c. 12, Sched. D, s. 16; 2021, c. 25, Sched. 19, s. 2; 2025, c. 22, Sched. 3, s. 9 (1).
> Same — 96 (3) In an application under section 92, the Board shall consider such reports, documents or other information as may be prescribed by the regulations. 2025, c. 22, Sched. 3, s. 9 (2).
> Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y) — 2025, c. 22, Sched. 3, s. 9 (1, 2) - 11/12/2025
> Lieutenant Governor in Council, order re electricity transmission line — 96.1 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make an order declaring that the construction, expansion or reinforcement of an electricity transmission line specified in the order is needed as a priority project. 2015, c. 29, s. 16.
### Electricity Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. A — e-Laws (ontario.ca), Government of Ontario
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98e15> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Electricity Act, 1998 / S.O. 1998, CHAPTER 15 / Schedule A
> Consolidation Period: From April 24, 2026 to the e-Laws currency date.
> Last amendment: 2026, c. 2, Sched. 5, s. 9.
> "market participant" means a person who is authorized by the market rules to participate in the IESO-administered markets or to cause or permit electricity to be conveyed into, through or out of the IESO-controlled grid; ("intervenant du marché")
> "market rules" means the rules made under section 32; ("règles du marché")
> Objects — 6 (1) The objects of the IESO are, (a) to exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to it under this Act, the regulations, directions, the market rules and its licence;
> (c) to direct the operation and maintain the reliability of the IESO-controlled grid to promote the purposes of this Act;
> (g) to operate the IESO-administered markets to promote the purposes of this Act;
> (l) to conduct independent planning for electricity generation, demand management, conservation and transmission;
> (l.1) to support economic growth in a manner that protects the interests of consumers;
> Prohibition — (5) The IESO shall not conduct the operations of the IESO-administered markets in any manner that, (a) unjustly advantages or disadvantages any market participant or class of market participants; or (b) is inconsistent with this Act. 2014, c. 7, Sched. 7, s. 3 (1).
> Exceptions for specified load facilities — 28.1 (1) In this section, "specified connection requirements" means, in relation to a specified load facility, (a) any conditions, requirements or limitations that the regulations specify must be met for the specified load facility to be connected or reconnected to a transmission system or distribution system, as applicable, (b) any approvals that the regulations specify must be obtained for the specified load facility to be connected or reconnected to a transmission system or distribution system, as applicable, and (c) any conditions, requirements or limitations of an approval described in clause (b); ("exigences précisées en matière de raccordement")
> "specified load facility" means a facility or class of facilities, (a) that is a data centre and that meets any criteria that may be set out in the regulations, or (b) that, (i) withdraws or would, if it were connected to a transmission system or distribution system, be expected to withdraw electricity from the IESO-controlled grid or from the distribution system of a distributor who is licensed under Part V of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, (ii) has or would, if it were connected to a transmission system or distribution system, be expected to have a demand for electricity at the point of connection to the transmission system or distribution system, as applicable, that exceeds the amount prescribed by the regulations, and (iii) meets any other criteria that may be set out in the regulations. ("installation de charge précisée") 2025, c. 22, Sched. 1, s. 7.
> Connection or reconnection of specified load facilities — (2) Unless a transmitter or distributor is satisfied that the specified connection requirements have been complied with, the transmitter or distributor shall not, (a) connect a specified load facility to its transmission system or distribution system, as applicable; or (b) reconnect a specified load facility to the transmission or distribution system after the specified load facility was disconnected, in accordance with the regulations, as a result of the nonfulfillment or breach of any of the specified connection requirements. 2025, c. 22, Sched. 1, s. 7.
> Transition — (6) This section does not apply to a specified load facility in respect of which a connection request made in accordance with the Transmission System Code or the Distribution System Code issued under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 was submitted to a transmitter or distributor, as applicable, before June 3, 2025. 2025, c. 22, Sched. 1, s. 7.
> Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y) — 2025, c. 22, Sched. 1, s. 7 - 11/12/2025
> (f.0.1) defining "data centre" for the purposes of section 28.1;
> (f.0.2) prescribing criteria for the purposes of the definition of "specified load facility" in section 28.1, which may include, but are not limited to, criteria related to, (i) the geographic area in which the specified load facility is or may be located, (ii) the maximum volume of electricity that the specified load facility may withdraw at the point of connection to the transmission system or have distributed to it at the point of connection to the distribution system, as applicable, or (iii) the maximum demand for electricity that the specified load facility may have at the point of connection to the transmission system or distribution system, as applicable;
### O. Reg. 161/99: DEFINITIONS AND EXEMPTIONS, under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 — e-Laws (ontario.ca)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/990161> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> O. Reg. 161/99: DEFINITIONS AND EXEMPTIONS, Under: Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. B
> ONTARIO REGULATION 161/99 — DEFINITIONS AND EXEMPTIONS — Consolidation Period: From January 1, 2024 to the e-Laws currency date. Last amendment: 376/23.
> 6.2 (1) Subsection 92 (1) of the Act does not apply to, (a) a person that constructs, expands or reinforces an electricity distribution line; (b) a person that makes an interconnection linking a distribution system with an adjacent distribution system; (c) a person that constructs or reinforces an electricity transmission line that is two kilometres or less in length; (d) a person that expands an electricity transmission line in length by two kilometres or less;
> (e) a person, other than a licensed transmitter or licensed distributor, that constructs, expands or reinforces an electricity transmission line, if the cost of the construction, expansion or reinforcement of the line is to be exclusively paid for by the person;
> (f) a person that makes an interconnection linking a transmission system with an adjacent transmission system in Ontario; or (g) a person that makes an interconnection linking a distribution system with an adjacent transmission system. O. Reg. 365/00, s. 4; O. Reg. 72/02, s. 6; O. Reg. 511/22, s. 1 (1).
### Leave to construct applications for priority transmission projects — Ontario Energy Board
<https://www.oeb.ca/applications/applications-oeb/leave-construct-applications-priority-transmission-projects> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Section 92 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 (Act) requires transmitters and distributors to obtain approval from the OEB for the construction, expansion, or reinforcement of electricity transmission and distribution lines or interconnections.
> Section 96 (1) of the Act sets out that after the OEB considers an application under section 92, if it is of the opinion that the construction, expansion or reinforcement of the proposed work is in the public interest, it shall make an order granting leave to carry out the work.
> Under section 96.1 (1) of the Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make an order declaring that the construction, expansion or reinforcement of an electricity transmission line specified in the order is needed as a priority project. Even if a transmission line is declared to be a priority project, OEB approval to build the line under section 92 of the Act is still required. However, in these cases the OEB must accept that the project is needed when forming its opinion under section 96 of the Act.
> This page identifies any leave to construct applications for priority transmission projects currently in process at the OEB.
> There are currently no leave to construct applications before the OEB for approval to build a transmission line that has been declared to be a priority project under section 96.1 of the Act.
### Natural Gas Facilities Handbook — Ontario Energy Board
<https://www.oeb.ca/regulatory-rules-and-documents/rules-codes-and-requirements/natural-gas-facilities-handbook> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> The Natural Gas Facilities Handbook provides guidance related to the following application types:
> 2. Under the Ontario Energy Board Act — Section 38, Designated Storage Area Applications; Section 40, DSA Well Drilling Licence Application Referrals; Section 90 and 91, Leave to Construct Applications; Section 95, Exemption from the Requirements of Section 90 Applications; Section 99, Expropriation Applications related to Leave to Construct Approvals
> On September 24, 2024, the OEB issued new Filing Requirements applicable to applications for exemption from leave to construct applications contemplated in sections 90(2) and 95(2) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.
> On April 3, 2024, the OEB issued a letter to natural gas distributors regarding minor revisions that it has made to the standard conditions of approval typically attached to the OEB's decisions approving natural gas leave to construct applications.
### Managing the Power System — IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator). Requested as https://www.ieso.ca/en/Learn/About-the-IESO/What-We-Do, which redirects here.
<https://ieso.ca/Learn/Ontario-Electricity-Grid/Managing-the-Power-System> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> The IESO is the coordinator and integrator of Ontario's electricity system. Our system operators monitor the energy needs of the province in real time – 24 hours a day, 7 days a week – balancing supply and demand and directing the flow of electricity across Ontario's transmission lines.
> The IESO works with our partners in the electricity sector, as well as our Canadian and U.S. neighbours, to ensure that Ontario's grid operates reliably and that everyone in Ontario has access to the energy they need, when and where they need it.
> The IESO is responsible for ensuring these five pillars of electricity system reliability are met: Capacity: The ability to produce enough electricity to meet demand; Energy: The ability to produce electricity consistently over time; Transmission: The ability to distribute and deliver electricity; Operability: The ability to respond to changes in demand; Ancillary Services: Technical support that fine-tunes the electricity grid to adapt to second-by-second changes in demand.
> Because the IESO controls all dispatch instructions for the province, our system operators can ensure that Ontario's electricity suppliers are not over or under producing at any given time and that the system is running as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.
> Copyright © 2026 Independent Electricity System Operator
### Overview of the Connection Process — IESO
<https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Overview> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> The process to connect a new facility or to modify an existing facility involves up to six stages as described below.
> New or modified connections to a transmitter's system are generally subject to all six stages, while new or modified connections to a distributor's system may only be subject to the first three.
> You are required to successfully complete all applicable stages to receive final approval to connect your new or modified facility to the electricity system and begin commercial operation.
> The entire process can take anywhere from a few months for small modifications to existing facilities, to more than three years for major modifications or to connect new facilities.
> 1. Prepare application — Planned connection of new facilities and modifications to existing facilities must be assessed to identify and mitigate any potential adverse effect on the reliability of the electricity grid and its existing customers. To ensure that the applicable processes are initiated, as a first step, please contact your transmitter or distributor.
> 2. Obtain conditional approval to connect — Your organization is required to obtain conditional approval for new or modified connections through the appropriate processes. Successful completion of the connection assessment process results in a conditional approval to connect. This stage typically takes one year.
> Transmission system connections — New connections or modifications to facilities connected to a transmitter's system are subject to the IESO's system impact assessment (SIA) and the transmitter's customer impact assessment (CIA).
> Distribution system connections — New connections or modifications to facilities connected to a distributor's system must participate in the distributor's connection assessment process. As part of this process, distributors may need to participate in the IESO's and transmitter's connection assessment processes to obtain their conditional approval to connect on your behalf.
> 4. Authorize market and program participation — To participate in the IESO-controlled grid, IESO-administered markets or programs, you must register your organization with the IESO to authorize it as a market or program participant. This stage typically takes about one month.
> 5. Register equipment — The equipment, telemetry, and metering installed at your facility must be registered and tested with the IESO. The IESO uses the data provided by market participants for the systems and models that are necessary to maintain the reliability of the IESO-controlled grid and to operate the IESO-administered markets. This stage takes at least three months.
> Successful completion of all six stages, to the satisfaction of the IESO, is required to obtain final approval to connect to the IESO-controlled grid, and start commercial operation in the IESO-administered markets.
> If you're exploring connection options and aren't ready to submit a formal request, start with our Major Projects Identification Committees (MPIC) process.
> Whether your organization is an existing or potential market participant, you can explore options for a new or modified connection with the IESO's technical feasibility study (TFS). This optional, confidential service is provided on a cost-recovery basis to identify and mitigate potential issues with various connection options, and help participants select a final connection option.
### Stage 2 – Obtain conditional approval to connect — IESO
<https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Obtain-Approval> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> If you determined during the previous stage that your organization is required to participate in the IESO's and transmitter's connection assessment and approval (CAA) process, please contact the IESO for a pre-application meeting.
> Upon receipt, the IESO will determine if the application qualifies for a system impact assessment (SIA) or an expedited system impact assessment (ESIA) and will assign a unique CAA ID.
> Step 2 – Execute the system impact assessment (SIA) agreement — After receiving your application and associated deposit for a connection assessment, the IESO will prepare an SIA agreement in accordance with section 6.1.15.3 of chapter 0.4 of the Market Rules for execution by your authorized representative.
> Step 3 – IESO completes SIA studies and produces draft report — Once you have provided all of the required information, the IESO will assess the impact of your proposed new or modified connection on the reliability of the integrated power system and issue a draft SIA report to your organization and the transmitter for review and comments.
> The transmitter generally initiates the customer impact assessment (CIA) after the draft SIA report from the IESO. A CIA agreement between the connection applicant and transmitter is also needed as part of the transmitter's CIA process.
> Step 4 – IESO issues final SIA report — After addressing comments received from your organization and the transmitter on the draft or revised draft SIA report, the IESO sends the final SIA report and one of the following to both parties: Notification of conditional approval (NoCA); Notification of disapproval with reasons (NoDR)
> The final SIA report will be published on the IESO website in the Application Status table at the end of the month in which it was finalized.
### Stage 4 – Authorize market and program participation — IESO
<https://www.ieso.ca/en/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Authorize-Market-and-Program-Participation> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Your organization must be authorized by the IESO to participate in the IESO-administered markets or programs, or to connect a physical facility to the IESO-controlled grid.
> Step 1 – Register organization — If your organization is new to the IESO, you must register prior to receiving authorization. To register, your organization must submit company information and appoint mandatory contact roles using the IESO's online application form... It may take up to three weeks to complete the registration process.
> Step 2 - Authorize as a market participant — The authorized representative appoints other roles, including the applicant representative, who will be responsible for authorizing your newly registered organization as a market participant using Online IESO (the IESO's web-based registration system).
> Paying the market registration application fee $1,130 ($1,000 + 13% HST)
> Providing the following: Ontario Energy Board (OEB) licence; National Energy Permit (for energy trader – exporter only); Prudential support if your organization plans to participate in the real-time IESO-administered markets
> Step 4 – IESO issues registration approval notification — Once the above authorization tasks are completed, the IESO will issue a registration approval notification (RAN) confirming that your organization has been approved by the IESO to participate in the IESO-administered markets and programs.
### Frequently Asked Questions - Connection Process — IESO
<https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Frequently-Asked-Questions> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> FAQ - Connection Assessments — What tools and models do the IESO use for System Impact Assessments (SIAs)? The IESO uses DSA and PSSE tools to conduct SIA studies.
> Is there an expedited process available in Ontario to skip the interconnection queue, similar to the US market? The IESO is not using an "interconnection queue", instead it adopted the concept of "committed projects" that is defined in Section 3.3 of Market Manual 1.4: Connection Assessment and Approval. As such, there is no option to "skip the interconnection queue", each assessment follows the timelines described in Section 5.8 of Market Manual 1.4: Connection Assessment and Approval.
> The treatment of new renewable generation facilities is no different than any other new facility, the normal System Impact Assessment (SIA) process applies to the connection of all generation facilities, renewable or non-renewable, equally.
> Where can I find the required application forms and data requirements for submitting a connection application to the IESO? You'll need to complete Form 128 and send it via email to connection.assessments@ieso.ca to initiate the SIA process.
### Bill 40, Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, 2025 — Legislative Assembly of Ontario
<https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-40> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Bill 40, Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, 2025
> Lecce, Hon. Stephen (Minister of Energy and Mines)
> Current status: Royal Assent received. Statutes of Ontario 2025, chapter 22
> Bill 40 has been enacted as Chapter 22 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2025.
> Bill 40 2025 — An Act to amend various statutes with respect to energy, the electrical sector and public utilities
> CONTENTS — Preamble; 1. Contents of this Act; 2. Commencement; 3. Short title; Schedule 1 Electricity Act, 1998; Schedule 2 Municipal Franchises Act; Schedule 3 Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998
> Preamble — The Government of Ontario is committed to: Building an affordable, secure, reliable and clean energy system to power the strongest economy in the G7. Prioritizing economic growth, job creation and strong governance as objectives of Ontario's energy system. Supporting the responsible growth of energy-intensive industries like data centres that align with Ontario's economic priorities and benefit local communities. Keeping our energy supply secure by supporting the sector with the implementation of limitations on foreign participation in Ontario's energy sector. Delivering affordable and clean energy for generations to power our economy and peoples' lives.
> Short title — 3 The short title of this Act is the Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, 2025.
> SCHEDULE 1 ELECTRICITY ACT, 1998 ... 4. New section 28.1 is added to the Act. It provides that transmitters or distributors shall not connect or reconnect certain load facilities from its transmission system or distribution system unless connection requirements that are specified in the regulations are met. Complementary amendments are made to the regulation-making authority in section 114.
> SCHEDULE 3 ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD ACT, 1998 ... 5. Section 96 of the Act is amended in respect of applications under section 92 of the Act (leave to construct, etc., electricity transmission or distribution line). Economic growth is added to the list of matters the Board is permitted to consider when deciding whether granting leave is in the public interest. As well, the Board is required to consider reports, documents or other information that may be specified by the regulations made under the Act in considering an application under section 92.
> SCHEDULE 3 ... 1. Subsection 1 (1) of the Act is amended to add a new objective of the Ontario Energy Board respecting economic growth in relation to the regulation of the electricity sector. 2. A new section 13.1 of the Act authorizes the Board's chief executive officer to issue internal policies respecting various procedural matters in relation to hearings and determinations.
> SCHEDULE 2 MUNICIPAL FRANCHISES ACT — ... Section 3 is re-enacted to remove the requirement for the municipal electors to assent to such a by-law and instead to require that a municipality pass a by-law setting out the terms and conditions.
### Bill 40 (44th Parliament, 1st Session) — Status — Legislative Assembly of Ontario
<https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-40/status> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Date | Bill stage | Event | Outcome | Committee
> December 11, 2025 | Royal Assent | Royal Assent received | - | -
> December 8, 2025 | Third Reading | Vote | Carried on division | -
> December 3, 2025 | Second Reading | Reported as amended | - | Standing Committee on the Interior
> November 17, 2025 | Second Reading | Ordered referred to Standing Committee pursuant to the Order of the House | - | Standing Committee on the Interior
> June 3, 2025 | First Reading | Ordered for Second Reading | - | -
> June 3, 2025 | First Reading | Vote | Carried | -
### Bill 40, Moving Ontarians Safely Act, 2023 — Legislative Assembly of Ontario
<https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-40> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Parliament 43, Session 1 — Bill 40, Moving Ontarians Safely Act, 2023
> The Bill amends the Highway Traffic Act. It is about the legal consequences of a collision that seriously injures or kills a pedestrian, a cyclist, a mobility device user, a roadway worker, an emergency responder outside their motor vehicle or another individual listed in the Bill.
### Bill 40, Support for Adults in Need of Assistance Act, 2021 — Legislative Assembly of Ontario
<https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-2/bill-40> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Parliament 42, Session 2 — Bill 40, Support for Adults in Need of Assistance Act, 2021
> The Bill enacts the Support for Adults in Need of Assistance Act, 2021. The Act requires regulated health professionals to report to a board of health if they have reasonable suspicion that an individual who is 16 years of age or older is being abused or neglected.
### Economic and Strategic Assessment Framework for New Data Centres — Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO 026-0853), Ministry of Energy and Mines
<https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/026-0853> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Economic and Strategic Assessment Framework for New Data Centres — ERO number 026-0853 — Notice type: Regulation — Posted by: Ministry of Energy and Mines — Notice stage: Proposal — Proposal posted: August 13, 2026 — Comment period: August 13, 2026 - September 12, 2026 (30 days) Open — Last updated: August 13, 2026
> This consultation closes at 11:59 p.m. on: September 12, 2026
> To ensure responsible data centre growth, the government introduced legislative amendments to the Electricity Act, 1998 that provide the Lieutenant Governor in Council the authority to set out in regulation requirements that data centres covered by the regulation must meet before connecting or re-connecting to the electricity grid.
> Data centres that do not meet these requirements would not be able to connect (or re-connect) to the electricity grid. The province is considering drafting a proposed regulation that, if approved, would require new large data centres to obtain the approval of the government to connect or reconnect to the electricity grid.
> To guide such approvals and attract the best data centre investments that drive economic growth, ensure Canadians' data remains in Canada and deliver significant and meaningful benefits to local communities, Ontario is proposing a Data Centre Playbook.
> Assessing proposed data centres against these pillars could form part of the broader proposed regulatory data centre connection process requiring connection approval by the government, alongside other considerations related to electricity system reliability, technical feasibility and cost responsibility.
> Pillar 1: Advance Economic Development ... Pillar 2: Protect Data Security and Digital Sovereignty ... Pillar 3: Invest in Communities and Earn Public Trust
> The government is therefore exploring amendments to Ontario Regulation 429/04 under the Electricity Act, 1998 that would establish a new separate rate Class (e.g., Class C) for new data centres above a specific demand threshold (e.g., 1 MW). Facilities in this rate class would not be eligible to participate in the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI), a demand response program for large electricity customers.
> In addition, there are a significant number of data centres that have applied for connections. MEM estimates these proposals could total more than 10,000 MW cumulatively.
### New Requirements for Data Centres Seeking to Connect to the Electricity Grid in Ontario — Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO 025-1001), Ministry of Energy and Mines
<https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-1001> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> New Requirements for Data Centres Seeking to Connect to the Electricity Grid in Ontario — ERO number 025-1001 — Notice type: Regulation — Posted by: Ministry of Energy and Mines — Notice stage: Proposal Updated — Proposal posted: September 5, 2025 — Comment period: September 5, 2025 - November 4, 2025 (60 days) Closed — Last updated: September 8, 2025
> The Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) introduced amendments to the Electricity Act, 1998 as part of Bill 40. If passed, the government is proposing to set out in regulation a process that will allow the Minister of Energy and Mines to prioritize and approve connection requests from data centre projects that serve the province's economic interests.
> The proposal contemplates implementing an approval process for connection requests of data centres covered by the proposed regulation.
> If the legislation passes, the proposed regulation will require covered data centre projects to receive approval from the Minister of Energy and Mines to connect to the provincial electricity grid.
> The data centre sector is forecast to represent about 13 per cent of new electricity demand in the province by 2035.
> The government is seeking input on the types of data centres that would be subject to the proposed requirement, including the electrica[l]
### Distribution System Code (DSC) — Ontario Energy Board
<https://www.oeb.ca/regulatory-rules-and-documents/rules-codes-and-requirements/distribution-system-code-dsc> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Distribution System Code (DSC) — Sets out the minimum obligations that a licensed electricity distributor must meet in carrying out its obligations to distribute electricity within its service area under its licence.
> Last revised August 1, 2026
> Appendix I - Methodology for Implementing a Capacity Allocation Model (pdf)
> 40. Amendment to introduce Capacity Allocation Model (CAM) to facilitate housing development connections and to create Appendix I to set out the CAM methodology. This change came into force on September 16, 2025 (EB- 2024-0092).
> DER Connection Procedures (DERCP) - Version 3.0 (issued December 18, 2025, came into force on May 1, 2026)
> Electric Vehicle Charging Connection Procedures (EVCCP)
---
## What this establishes
Each item names the source it rests on. An item here that no quotation above
supports is a defect in this file, not a fact.
- LEAVE TO CONSTRUCT — electricity: s. 92 (1) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 is the leave-to-construct provision for electricity lines. Operative words: "No person shall construct, expand or reinforce an electricity transmission line or an electricity distribution line or make an interconnection without first obtaining from the Board an order granting leave to construct, expand or reinforce such line or interconnection."
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98o15>
- LEAVE TO CONSTRUCT — hydrocarbon pipeline: s. 90 (1) is the separate leave-to-construct provision for hydrocarbon lines. Operative words: "No person shall construct a hydrocarbon line without first obtaining from the Board an order granting leave to construct the hydrocarbon line if," followed by four triggers — more than 20 km in length; projected cost above the prescribed amount; any part using pipe of nominal size 12 inches or more AND operating at 2,000 kilopascals or more; or criteria prescribed by the regulations. So s. 90 is threshold-based while s. 92 is not.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98o15>
- Both provisions sit in Part VI of the Act ("TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION LINES"). Section 89 defines "electricity transmission line" as conveying electricity above 50 kilovolts, "electricity distribution line" as 50 kilovolts or less, and "hydrocarbon line" as a pipe line carrying any hydrocarbon other than one within a refinery, storage depot, chemical processing plant or pipe line terminal or station.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98o15>
- The public-interest test is in s. 96 (1): if the Board "is of the opinion that the construction, expansion or reinforcement of the proposed work is in the public interest, it shall make an order granting leave to carry out the work." For s. 92 applications, s. 96 (2) confines what "public interest" may mean to two enumerated matters: "1. The interests of consumers with respect to prices and the reliability and quality of electricity service. 2. Supporting economic growth in a manner consistent with the policies of the Government of Ontario."
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98o15>
- The second branch of the s. 96 (2) test — "Supporting economic growth in a manner consistent with the policies of the Government of Ontario" — and the new s. 96 (3) duty to consider prescribed reports were added by 2025, c. 22, Sched. 3, s. 9, in force 11/12/2025. The e-Laws consolidation period for the Act begins December 11, 2025 and its last amendment is 2025, c. 22, Sched. 3.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98o15>
- Exemptions from leave to construct are available under s. 95: the Board "may, if in its opinion special circumstances of a particular case so require, make an order exempting any person from the requirements of subsection 90 (1) or 92 (1) without a hearing" (s. 95 (1)), and "shall" exempt where prescribed circumstances are met (s. 95 (2)). Section 94 requires a route map to be filed with the application.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98o15>
- Section 96.1 (1) lets the Lieutenant Governor in Council declare a transmission line a "priority project". The OEB's own page states that even then, "OEB approval to build the line under section 92 of the Act is still required. However, in these cases the OEB must accept that the project is needed when forming its opinion under section 96 of the Act."
*Source:* <https://www.oeb.ca/applications/applications-oeb/leave-construct-applications-priority-transmission-projects>
- OEB's own description of the s. 92 process: "Section 92 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 (Act) requires transmitters and distributors to obtain approval from the OEB for the construction, expansion, or reinforcement of electricity transmission and distribution lines or interconnections."
*Source:* <https://www.oeb.ca/applications/applications-oeb/leave-construct-applications-priority-transmission-projects>
- As of retrieval on 2026-08-29, the OEB's priority-transmission page states: "There are currently no leave to construct applications before the OEB for approval to build a transmission line that has been declared to be a priority project under section 96.1 of the Act." (This is a point-in-time statement and will change.)
*Source:* <https://www.oeb.ca/applications/applications-oeb/leave-construct-applications-priority-transmission-projects>
- On the natural-gas side, the OEB publishes a Natural Gas Facilities Handbook giving guidance on, among others, "Section 90 and 91, Leave to Construct Applications", "Section 95, Exemption from the Requirements of Section 90 Applications", and "Section 99, Expropriation Applications related to Leave to Construct Approvals". On September 24, 2024 the OEB issued new filing requirements for exemption applications under ss. 90(2) and 95(2).
*Source:* <https://www.oeb.ca/regulatory-rules-and-documents/rules-codes-and-requirements/natural-gas-facilities-handbook>
- O. Reg. 161/99 (Definitions and Exemptions) under the OEB Act, s. 6.2 (1), exempts several categories from s. 92 (1) — including "a person that constructs, expands or reinforces an electricity distribution line" and "a person that constructs or reinforces an electricity transmission line that is two kilometres or less in length". This is the source of the commonly cited 2 km transmission threshold; distribution lines are exempt outright by regulation notwithstanding their inclusion in s. 92 (1).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/990161>
- THE IESO, in its own words: "The IESO is the coordinator and integrator of Ontario's electricity system. Our system operators monitor the energy needs of the province in real time – 24 hours a day, 7 days a week – balancing supply and demand and directing the flow of electricity across Ontario's transmission lines." It names five reliability pillars: Capacity, Energy, Transmission, Operability and Ancillary Services.
*Source:* <https://ieso.ca/Learn/Ontario-Electricity-Grid/Managing-the-Power-System>
- The IESO's statutory objects are in s. 6 (1) of the Electricity Act, 1998 and include directing the operation and maintaining the reliability of the IESO-controlled grid (cl. c), operating the IESO-administered markets (cl. g), conducting independent planning (cl. l), and — added by Bill 40 — "to support economic growth in a manner that protects the interests of consumers" (cl. l.1).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98e15>
- MARKET PARTICIPATION — statutory definition: "market participant" means "a person who is authorized by the market rules to participate in the IESO-administered markets or to cause or permit electricity to be conveyed into, through or out of the IESO-controlled grid" (Electricity Act, 1998, s. 2 definitions). Section 6 (5) forbids the IESO from operating the markets in a way that "unjustly advantages or disadvantages any market participant or class of market participants".
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98e15>
- MARKET PARTICIPATION — operationally, per the IESO: "To participate in the IESO-controlled grid, IESO-administered markets or programs, you must register your organization with the IESO to authorize it as a market or program participant." Registration runs through Online IESO, requires an OEB licence, prudential support for real-time market participation, and a market registration application fee of $1,130; it ends with the IESO issuing a "registration approval notification (RAN)".
*Source:* <https://www.ieso.ca/en/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Authorize-Market-and-Program-Participation>
- CONNECTION PROCESS — the IESO runs a six-stage connection process: (1) Prepare application; (2) Obtain conditional approval to connect; (3) Design and build; (4) Authorize market and program participation; (5) Register equipment; (6) Commission equipment and validate performance. "New or modified connections to a transmitter's system are generally subject to all six stages, while new or modified connections to a distributor's system may only be subject to the first three."
*Source:* <https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Overview>
- "System Impact Assessment" IS the IESO's real term, confirmed on multiple IESO pages. The IESO: "New connections or modifications to facilities connected to a transmitter's system are subject to the IESO's system impact assessment (SIA) and the transmitter's customer impact assessment (CIA)." The IESO conducts the SIA; the transmitter conducts the CIA.
*Source:* <https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Overview>
- The umbrella name for the process is the "connection assessment and approval (CAA)" process. On application the IESO "will determine if the application qualifies for a system impact assessment (SIA) or an expedited system impact assessment (ESIA) and will assign a unique CAA ID". The SIA agreement is prepared "in accordance with section 6.1.15.3 of chapter 0.4 of the Market Rules". The IESO then "will assess the impact of your proposed new or modified connection on the reliability of the integrated power system" and issues a draft, then final, SIA report accompanied by either a "Notification of conditional approval (NoCA)" or a "Notification of disapproval with reasons (NoDR)".
*Source:* <https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Obtain-Approval>
- The transmitter "generally initiates the customer impact assessment (CIA) after the draft SIA report from the IESO", and a CIA agreement between the connection applicant and the transmitter is required as part of the transmitter's CIA process.
*Source:* <https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Obtain-Approval>
- Ontario does NOT operate an "interconnection queue". The IESO: "The IESO is not using an 'interconnection queue', instead it adopted the concept of 'committed projects' that is defined in Section 3.3 of Market Manual 1.4: Connection Assessment and Approval. As such, there is no option to 'skip the interconnection queue'."
*Source:* <https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Frequently-Asked-Questions>
- Connection timelines, per the IESO: stage 2 (conditional approval) "typically takes one year"; stage 4 "typically takes about one month"; stage 5 "takes at least three months"; and the whole process "can take anywhere from a few months for small modifications to existing facilities, to more than three years for major modifications or to connect new facilities."
*Source:* <https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Overview>
- LARGE LOADS / DATA CENTRES — there IS a real, in-force Ontario statutory process. Section 28.1 of the Electricity Act, 1998 ("Exceptions for specified load facilities") came into force 11/12/2025 (added by 2025, c. 22, Sched. 1, s. 7). It provides: "Unless a transmitter or distributor is satisfied that the specified connection requirements have been complied with, the transmitter or distributor shall not, (a) connect a specified load facility to its transmission system or distribution system... or (b) reconnect a specified load facility..."
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98e15>
- "Specified load facility" is defined in s. 28.1 (1) as a facility or class of facilities "(a) that is a data centre and that meets any criteria that may be set out in the regulations", OR (b) one that withdraws electricity from the IESO-controlled grid or a licensed distributor's system, has demand at the point of connection "that exceeds the amount prescribed by the regulations", and meets any other prescribed criteria. So the section is expressly aimed at data centres and at large loads defined by a regulated demand threshold.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98e15>
- Section 28.1 (6) is a transition rule: the section "does not apply to a specified load facility in respect of which a connection request made in accordance with the Transmission System Code or the Distribution System Code issued under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 was submitted to a transmitter or distributor, as applicable, before June 3, 2025" — i.e. the date Bill 40 received First Reading.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98e15>
- ⚠️ **CORRECTED 2026-08-29 — "two LIVE consultations" was wrong, and the quoted notice data three sections above says so.** ERO 025-1001's comment period ran 5 September – **4 November 2025** and the notice reads **"Closed"**; only ERO 026-0853 (13 August – 12 September 2026) was open on the retrieval date. The overreach reached `src/data/practice-pages.ts` and was caught on a self-audit against this file before it shipped. The original wording of this item follows.
- ~~There are two live Ontario government consultations specifically about connecting data centres to the grid.~~ There are two Ontario government consultations specifically about connecting data centres to the grid, **one of them closed.** ERO 025-1001, "New Requirements for Data Centres Seeking to Connect to the Electricity Grid in Ontario" (Ministry of Energy and Mines, Regulation notice, Proposal, posted September 5, 2025, comment period closed November 4, 2025): "the proposed regulation will require covered data centre projects to receive approval from the Minister of Energy and Mines to connect to the provincial electricity grid."
*Source:* <https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-1001>
- ERO 026-0853, "Economic and Strategic Assessment Framework for New Data Centres" (Ministry of Energy and Mines, Regulation notice, Proposal, posted August 13, 2026, comment period August 13 – September 12, 2026, OPEN as at 2026-08-29). It proposes a "Data Centre Playbook" and a three-pillar assessment (Advance Economic Development; Protect Data Security and Digital Sovereignty; Invest in Communities and Earn Public Trust), and separately proposes "amendments to Ontario Regulation 429/04 under the Electricity Act, 1998 that would establish a new separate rate Class (e.g., Class C) for new data centres above a specific demand threshold (e.g., 1 MW)", whose facilities "would not be eligible to participate in the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI)".
*Source:* <https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/026-0853>
- As at August 13, 2026 the connection-approval regulation under s. 28.1 was still prospective in the Ministry's own words: "The province is considering drafting a proposed regulation that, if approved, would require new large data centres to obtain the approval of the government to connect or reconnect to the electricity grid."
*Source:* <https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/026-0853>
- BILL 40 — the energy Bill 40 is Bill 40 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session: "Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, 2025", sponsored by Hon. Stephen Lecce (Minister of Energy and Mines). Long title: "An Act to amend various statutes with respect to energy, the electrical sector and public utilities". Status: "Royal Assent received. Statutes of Ontario 2025, chapter 22". It has three schedules: Electricity Act, 1998; Municipal Franchises Act; Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.
*Source:* <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-40>
- Bill 40 (44-1) timeline: First Reading June 3, 2025; referred to the Standing Committee on the Interior November 17, 2025; reported as amended December 3, 2025; Third Reading vote carried on division December 8, 2025; Royal Assent December 11, 2025.
*Source:* <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-40/status>
- Bill 40's preamble names data centres expressly: the Government of Ontario is committed to "Supporting the responsible growth of energy-intensive industries like data centres that align with Ontario's economic priorities and benefit local communities."
*Source:* <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-40>
- Bill 40 is the direct link between the two topics above: its Schedule 1 added Electricity Act s. 28.1 (data centre / large load connection requirements) and its Schedule 3 amended OEB Act s. 96 so that "Economic growth is added to the list of matters the Board is permitted to consider when deciding whether granting leave is in the public interest" on a s. 92 leave-to-construct application, and required the Board to consider prescribed reports and documents.
*Source:* <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-40>
- THE TRAP CONFIRMED — "Bill 40" is reused every parliament and most Bill 40s are unrelated to energy. Two verified non-energy examples: Bill 40 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session is the "Moving Ontarians Safely Act, 2023", amending the Highway Traffic Act; and Bill 40 of the 42nd Parliament, 2nd Session is the "Support for Adults in Need of Assistance Act, 2021", on reporting abuse or neglect of adults. Only the 44-1 Bill 40 is the energy bill. Any reference to "Bill 40" in an Ontario energy context must be cited as Bill 40, 44th Parliament, 1st Session / S.O. 2025, c. 22.
*Source:* <https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-40>
- A real Ontario term adjacent to "connection allocation" is the OEB's "Capacity Allocation Model (CAM)" in the Distribution System Code: DSC amendment 40 "introduce[d] Capacity Allocation Model (CAM) to facilitate housing development connections and to create Appendix I to set out the CAM methodology. This change came into force on September 16, 2025 (EB- 2024-0092)." The DSC also carries DER Connection Procedures (DERCP) and Electric Vehicle Charging Connection Procedures (EVCCP).
*Source:* <https://www.oeb.ca/regulatory-rules-and-documents/rules-codes-and-requirements/distribution-system-code-dsc>
---
## What this does NOT establish
**Read this section before writing copy.** It is the half that keeps a page
honest, and on this project it is the half that has twice been skipped.
- **Is "connection allocation" an actual Ontario term of art for the process by which a generator or large load gets grid access?**
- *Searched:* Full-text grep for "allocation" and "connection allocation" across all four IESO pages fetched (Connection Process Overview, Stage 2 Obtain Approval, Stage 4 Authorize Participation, Connection Process FAQ); plus WebSearch for '"connection allocation" Ontario electricity IESO OEB'.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED — zero hits for "allocation" of any kind in the IESO connection-process pages. Do not use "connection allocation" as an Ontario term. The correct terms, all verified above, are: connection assessment and approval (CAA), System Impact Assessment (SIA, by the IESO), Customer Impact Assessment (CIA, by the transmitter), and Notification of Conditional Approval (NoCA). A distinct and real OEB term is "Capacity Allocation Model (CAM)" in the Distribution System Code, but it is about distribution capacity for housing developments, not transmission connection generally.
- **Has the implementing regulation under Electricity Act s. 28.1 (defining "data centre", the demand threshold for a "specified load facility", and the "specified connection requirements") actually been made?**
- *Searched:* e-Laws act-reg API listing of current regulations under the Electricity Act, 1998 (returned 50 current regulations, none titled for data centres or specified load facilities); ERO notices 025-1001 and 026-0853 fetched in full; WebSearch for '"O. Reg." Ontario "data centre" Electricity Act 1998 connection regulation'.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED either way, and DO NOT ASSERT ITS ABSENCE. What IS established is that as at August 13, 2026 the Ministry of Energy and Mines described the connection-approval regulation as something "the province is considering drafting". The 50-item regulation list may have been truncated by a page cap, and criteria could in principle be added to an existing regulation rather than a new one. Safe wording: "the enabling section is in force since 11 December 2025; the Ministry's August 2026 consultation still described the connection-approval regulation as under consideration." Re-verify before publishing anything about the regulation's status.
- **Is there a dedicated IESO connection process, page, or queue specifically for large loads or data centres (as distinct from the general six-stage process)?**
- *Searched:* WebSearch restricted to ieso.ca for '"data centre" OR "large load" connection IESO Ontario'; plus review of the four IESO connection-process pages fetched.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED — no IESO page describing a data-centre- or large-load-specific connection process was found. The general six-stage CAA/SIA/CIA process appears to apply to load facilities as it does to generation (the IESO's CAA application form has a "Load Facilities" variant). An IESO planning paper titled "Demand & Conservation Planning Technical Paper: Large Step Loads" appeared in search results but was NOT fetched and is a planning/forecasting document, not a connection process. Note that several search results for "large load connection process" were about the AESO in Alberta, not Ontario — do not confuse the two.
- **Does the OEB publish a general (non-priority-project) explainer page for the electricity leave-to-construct process?**
- *Searched:* WebSearch on oeb.ca for leave-to-construct application/filing-requirements pages; fetched the OEB priority-transmission leave-to-construct page and the Natural Gas Facilities Handbook page.
- *Outcome:* PARTIALLY ESTABLISHED. The OEB page fetched and quoted is specifically the priority-transmission-projects page, though its text describes ss. 92, 96(1) and 96.1(1) generally. An 'OEB-Electricity-Leave-to-Construct-Filing-Requirements-20230316.pdf' and an 'issues-list-LTC-electricity.pdf' appeared in search results but were NOT fetched, and the 2023 filing requirements would predate the 2024 and 2025 statutory amendments verified above. Do not cite them.
- **Typical duration or cost of an OEB section 92 leave-to-construct hearing.**
- *Searched:* WebSearch for the OEB section 92 application process (a snippet asserted 'several months'); no primary OEB page fetched that states a timeline.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED — the 'several months' figure came only from a search-result snippet, not from a fetched OEB source. Do not publish any duration or cost figure for a leave-to-construct proceeding. The only timeline figures verified in this research are the IESO connection-process stage timings, which are a different process.
---
## Searches run
- `WebSearch: IESO "System Impact Assessment" connection assessment procedure ieso.ca`
- `WebSearch: Ontario Energy Board "leave to construct" section 92 application process oeb.ca`
- `WebSearch: Ontario Bill 40 site:ola.org`
- `WebSearch: Ontario regulation "specified load facility" data centre connection Electricity Act 28.1 consultation`
- `WebSearch: "O. Reg." Ontario "data centre" Electricity Act 1998 connection regulation ontario.ca/laws 2026`
- `WebSearch: IESO large load data centre connection process ieso.ca`
- `WebSearch: oeb.ca "leave to construct" natural gas pipeline application filing requirements process page`
- `WebSearch: IESO "market registration" become a market participant registration process ieso.ca overview`
- `WebSearch (allowed_domains restricted to ieso.ca): "data centre" OR "large load" connection IESO Ontario`
- `WebSearch: "connection allocation" Ontario electricity IESO OEB`
- `WebFetch: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98e15 — FAILED, returned only the SPA shell with no statute text`
- `WebFetch: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1998-c-15-sch-b/latest/so-1998-c-15-sch-b.html — FAILED, HTTP 403 (CanLII blocks both WebFetch and curl)`
- `e-Laws API: GET https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/laws/autocomplete?term=Ontario%20Energy%20Board%20Act — used to establish the correct e-Laws alias`
- `e-Laws API: GET https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/laws/autocomplete?term=Definitions%20and%20Exemptions — used to find the alias for O. Reg. 161/99`
- `e-Laws API: GET https://www.ontario.ca/laws/api/v2/legislation/en/act-reg/statute?title=electricity%20act,%201998&sort=citation — listed 50 current regulations under the Electricity Act, 1998`
- `curl (Googlebot UA, required for e-Laws prerender): https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98o15 — Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998`
- `curl (Googlebot UA): https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98e15 — Electricity Act, 1998`
- `curl (Googlebot UA): https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/990161 — O. Reg. 161/99`
- `curl: https://www.oeb.ca/applications/applications-oeb/leave-construct-applications-priority-transmission-projects`
- `curl: https://www.oeb.ca/regulatory-rules-and-documents/rules-codes-and-requirements/natural-gas-facilities-handbook`
- `curl: https://www.oeb.ca/regulatory-rules-and-documents/rules-codes-and-requirements/distribution-system-code-dsc`
- `curl: https://www.ieso.ca/en/Learn/About-the-IESO/What-We-Do (redirects to https://ieso.ca/Learn/Ontario-Electricity-Grid/Managing-the-Power-System)`
- `curl: https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Overview`
- `curl: https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Obtain-Approval`
- `curl: https://www.ieso.ca/en/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Authorize-Market-and-Program-Participation`
- `curl: https://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Connection-Process/Frequently-Asked-Questions`
- `curl: https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-40 and /status`
- `curl: https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-40`
- `curl: https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-2/bill-40`
- `curl: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/026-0853`
- `curl: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-1001`
- `METHOD NOTE 1 — e-Laws (ontario.ca/laws) is a React SPA. A normal fetch returns a 54 KB shell containing ZERO statute text and no error. Fetching with a Googlebot user-agent returns the full prerendered HTML (672 KB for the OEB Act, 909 KB for the Electricity Act). Anyone re-verifying these quotes must use the bot UA or the quotes will appear unverifiable.`
- `METHOD NOTE 2 — the e-Laws alias for the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 is 98o15 (S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. B). 98e15 is the Electricity Act, 1998 (Sched. A). My first fetch used 98e15 for the OEB Act and would have sourced the wrong statute; the autocomplete API caught it. Both statutes are needed here and they are easy to transpose.`
- `ARTEFACTS — all fetched HTML and extracted text saved under /private/tmp/claude-501/-Users-pouya-Dev-Websites-adr-sml/2e628a52-3cc2-46e4-a4c9-dc1e5273a175/scratchpad/ : g.html + g.txt (OEB Act), ea.html + ea.txt (Electricity Act), r161.html + r161.txt (O. Reg. 161/99), oeb_ltc.*, oeb_ngfh.*, oeb_dsc.*, ieso_Overview.*, ieso_Obtain-Approval.*, ieso_stage4.*, ieso_faq.*, ieso_What-We-Do.*, bill40.*, b40status.*, b40_43.html, b40_42.html, ero_026-0853.*, ero_025-1001.*. These are in a scratchpad, NOT in the repo — under the project's own rule that a claim's supporting artefact must be reachable from the repository, they must be committed (or a faithful extract with provenance committed) before any of these facts goes on a public page.`
docs/reference/ontario-sabs-lat.md
+409
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,409 @@
# Ontario SABS and the Licence Appeal Tribunal — the regulation, the MIG, the forum, and published caseload
Committed under AGENTS.md R14 and the CLAUDE.md rule it encodes: **anything a
spec makes a claim about must be reachable from the repository.** Every fact
the six `/practice/*` pages state about the world is checkable here or it is
not published.
**Retrieved 2026-08-29.** Fetched from the primary sources listed below and
extracted with quotations pasted verbatim. This file is the artefact; the pages
cite it. Do not paraphrase a fact into a page that is not stated here.
> ⚠️ **A statute, a regulation and a tribunal page all move.** Every consolidation
> date and effective date below is as at the retrieval date and nothing more.
> Re-check before cutover, and before any republish that turns on one of them.
**Topic as researched:** Ontario accident benefits (SABS) disputes — regulation, Minor Injury Guideline, the LAT-AABS dispute route, tribunal caseload volume, mediation references in tribunal materials, and FSRA's role
---
## Sources
| Kind | Source | URL |
|---|---|---|
| regulation | O. Reg. 34/10: STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFITS SCHEDULE - EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 — Ontario e-Laws | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034> |
| statute | Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 — Ontario e-Laws | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i08> |
| statute | Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G — Ontario e-Laws | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/99l12> |
| tribunal | Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (LAT-AABS) — Tribunals Ontario | <https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/> |
| tribunal | Laws, rules and decisions — LAT-AABS, Tribunals Ontario | <https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/laws-rules-and-decisions/> |
| tribunal | Application and hearing process — LAT-AABS, Tribunals Ontario | <https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/application-and-hearing-process/> |
| tribunal | Tribunals Ontario 2024-25 Annual Report | <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2024-2025_Annual_Report.html> |
| tribunal | Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules (2025 consolidation) — Tribunals Ontario | <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/lat/LAT-Rules_2025.html> |
| statute | Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016, S.O. 2016, c. 37, Sched. 8 — Ontario e-Laws | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/16f37> |
---
## Verbatim quotations
### O. Reg. 34/10: STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFITS SCHEDULE - EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 — Ontario e-Laws
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> O. Reg. 34/10: STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFITS SCHEDULE - EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2010
> <meta property="og:actTitle" content="Insurance Act" />
> ONTARIO REGULATION 34/10
> Consolidation Period: From July 1, 2026 to the e-Laws currency date.
> Last amendment: 58/25.
> Definitions and interpretation
> 3. (1) In this Regulation,
> “minor injury” means one or more of a sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation and includes any clinically associated sequelae to such an injury; (“blessure légère”)
> “Minor Injury Guideline” means a guideline, (a) that is issued by the Chief Executive Officer under subsection 268.3 (1.1) of the Act and published in The Ontario Gazette, and (b) that establishes a treatment framework in respect of one or more minor injuries; (“Directive sur les blessures légères”)
> “Guideline” means, (a) a guideline, including the Minor Injury Guideline, issued by the Chief Executive Officer under subsection 268.3 (1) of the Act and published in The Ontario Gazette,
> Monetary limits re medical and rehabilitation benefits
> 18. (1) The sum of the medical and rehabilitation benefits payable in respect of an insured person who sustains an impairment that is predominantly a minor injury shall not exceed $3,500 plus the amount of any applicable harmonized sales tax payable under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) for accidents that occur on or after June 3, 2019 for any one accident, less the sum of all amounts paid in respect of the insured person in accordance with the Minor Injury Guideline. O. Reg. 34/10, s. 18 (1); O. Reg. 123/19, s. 2 (1).
> (2) Despite subsection (1), the limit in that subsection does not apply to an insured person if his or her health practitioner determines and provides compelling evidence that the insured person has a pre-existing medical condition that was documented by a health practitioner before the accident and that will prevent the insured person from achieving maximal recovery from the minor injury if the insured person is subject to the limit or is limited to the goods and services authorized under the Minor Injury Guideline. O. Reg. 34/10, s. 18 (2); O. Reg. 347/13, s. 1; O. Reg. 123/19, s. 2 (2).
> (3) The sum of the medical, rehabilitation and attendant care benefits paid in respect of an insured person who is not subject to the financial limit in subsection (1) shall not exceed, for any one accident, (a) $65,000 plus the amount of any applicable harmonized sales tax payable under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) for accidents that occur on or after June 3, 2019; or (b) if the insured person sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident, $1,000,000
> “Old Regulation” means Ontario Regulation 403/96 (Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Accidents on or After November 1, 1996), made under the Act; (“ancien règlement”)
> (a) that are authorized by, and calculated by applying the rates set out in, the most recent transportation expense guideline published by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, and
> An application under subsection 280 (2) of the Act in respect of a benefit shall be commenced within two years after the insurer’s refusal to pay the amount claimed. O. Reg. 44/16, s. 6.
### Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 — Ontario e-Laws
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i08> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Dispute Resolution — Statutory Accident Benefits
> 279 For the purposes of sections 280 to 283, “insured person” includes a person who is claiming funeral expenses or a death benefit under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule; (“personne assurée”)
> “Licence Appeal Tribunal” means the Licence Appeal Tribunal established under the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999. (“Tribunal d’appel en matière de permis”) 2014, c. 9, Sched. 3, s. 14.
> Resolution of disputes
> 280 (1) This section applies with respect to the resolution of disputes in respect of an insured person’s entitlement to statutory accident benefits or in respect of the amount of statutory accident benefits to which an insured person is entitled. 2014, c. 9, Sched. 3, s. 14.
> Application to Tribunal (2) The insured person or the insurer may apply to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to resolve a dispute described in subsection (1). 2014, c. 9, Sched. 3, s. 14.
> Limit on court proceedings (3) No person may bring a proceeding in any court with respect to a dispute described in subsection (1), other than an appeal from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal or an application for judicial review. 2014, c. 9, Sched. 3, s. 14.
> Resolution in accordance with Schedule (4) The dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. 2014, c. 9, Sched. 3, s. 14.
> 2014, c. 9, Sched. 3, s. 14 - 01/04/2016
> “Chief Executive Officer” means the Chief Executive Officer appointed under subsection 10 (2) of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016; (“directeur général de l’Autorité”)
> 268.3 (1) The Chief Executive Officer may issue guidelines on the interpretation and operation of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule or any provision of that Schedule. 1993, c. 10, s. 27; 1997, c. 28, s. 116; 2018, c. 8, Sched. 13, s. 22.
> Same (1.1) The Chief Executive Officer may issue guidelines setting out the treatment, services, measures or goods applicable in respect of types of impairments for the purposes of payment of a medical or rehabilitation benefit provided under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and such guidelines may include conditions, restrictions and limits with respect to such treatment, services, measures or goods. 2002, c. 22, s. 125; 2018, c. 8, Sched. 13, s. 22.
> Effect of guideline (2) Subject to section 268.2, a guideline shall be considered in any determination involving the interpretation of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. 1993, c. 10, s. 27.
### Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G — Ontario e-Laws
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/99l12> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G
> S.O. 1999, CHAPTER 12 Schedule G
> Consolidation Period: From January 1, 2025 to the e-Laws currency date.
> Tribunal established 2 (1) There is hereby established a tribunal to be known in English as the Licence Appeal Tribunal and in French as Tribunal d’appel en matière de permis. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G, s. 2 (1).
> Members (2) The Tribunal shall consist of not fewer than three members. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G, s. 2 (2).
### Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (LAT-AABS) — Tribunals Ontario
<https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Resolve a dispute about an insured person’s entitlement to, or amount of, statutory motor vehicle accident benefits
> A person who is injured in an automobile accident can apply to LAT-AABS if there is a disagreement about their entitlement to accident benefits or the amount of benefits that should be paid.
> If an insurance company believes an individual has been paid too much under their policy, the company can file a LAT-AABS application to have the money returned.
> The LAT has two divisions – LAT-AABS and LAT-GS (General Service). LAT-GS resolves a variety of appeals including vehicle impoundments, licence suspensions, monetary orders, licensing, consumer compensation claims, and compliance orders.
### Laws, rules and decisions — LAT-AABS, Tribunals Ontario
<https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/laws-rules-and-decisions/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> The Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) make the LAT-AABS responsible for resolving disputes over automobile accident benefits:
> Section 280 of the Insurance Act says that a person or insurance company may apply to the LAT-AABS to resolve a dispute about an insured person’s entitlement to, or amount of, a statutory motor vehicle accident benefit.
> Section 268 of the Insurance Act says that every motor vehicle liability policy provides specified benefits which are set out in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), a regulation made under the Insurance Act.
> Sections 279-288 of the Insurance Act deal with disputes about motor vehicle accident insurance benefits.
> Related laws Licence Appeal Tribunal Act Insurance Act Statutory Powers Procedure Act Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act Auto Insurance Rate Stabilization Act
> Related regulations Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O. Reg. 34/10 (Effective September 1, 2010)
> Rules of Practice Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (effective November 17, 2025)
### Application and hearing process — LAT-AABS, Tribunals Ontario
<https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/application-and-hearing-process/> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> 4. Consider other ways to resolve your dispute
> Before you apply to the LAT-AABS, you may want to consider negotiation or mediation services. Parties are encouraged to attempt to negotiate the claim at all times, including before filing at the LAT-AABS, and continuing negotiation discussions after a claim has been filed.
> The SABS is the framework that the LAT-AABS uses to help you and your motor vehicle insurance company reach a settlement. The SABS is a regulation under the Insurance Act that sets out the benefits and compensation that may be available to you as a driver, passenger, or pedestrian if you have been hurt in a motor vehicle accident.
> You are encouraged to talk to your insurance company and try to settle your dispute before starting the LAT-AABS process. Settling your dispute with your insurance company is the fastest and least costly way to resolve your claim.
> You must file an application within two years after receiving this notice from the insurance company.
> A case conference is an opportunity for parties to attempt to settle their cases and, if a settlement is not reached, an adjudicator from the
> The goals of the case conference are to: help the parties reach a settlement;
> A case conference is led by an adjudicator whose role is to guide and support the parties in working to resolve the dispute. The adjudicator is trained to understand accident benefits disputes and will provide his or her view on what could happen if the case went to a hearing.
> the LAT-AABS will schedule a two-hour case conference for the parties to meet with an adjudicator. Case conferences will usually take place within 45-60 days of the response being received. The case conference will usually take place by telephone.
> Changes to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule effective July 1, 2026 may impact your insurance benefits and the rules that apply to them.
### Tribunals Ontario 2024-25 Annual Report
<https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2024-2025_Annual_Report.html> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Tribunals Ontario 2024-25 Annual Report
> This report reflects the agency's accomplishments for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.
> ISBN 978-1-4868-8848-1 © King's Printer for Ontario, 2025
> Table 2: LAT-AABS Caseload Overview
> Caseload 2024-2025 2023-2024 2022-2023 2021-2022
> Appeals received 16,002 16,142 13,983 15,800
> Appeals closed 18,884 18,016 16,257 11,668
> Active appeals at fiscal year end 9,191 12,016 13,903 16,204
> Case conferences held 12,081 11,556 11,411 7,752
> Decisions rendered 1,104 1,088 587 555
> Applications settled/withdrawn 17,603 16,941 15,337 11,116
> In 2024–2025, the LAT maintained strong service delivery while managing 16,776 new matters—the second-highest annual intake on record. This included 4,559 matters in Q4 alone, marking the highest quarterly appeal and application volume ever recorded at the LAT.
> In the last fiscal year, the LAT continued to reduce its active caseload, resolving a record 19,627 files despite the increased intake volume. As of March 31, 2025, the active caseload stood at 9,367 files down from a peak caseload of 17,465 in August 2022.
> To sustain service improvements, the LAT-AABS significantly reduced the time between application intake and the first case conference. In 2024-2025, the average timeline dropped to three months and three weeks, down from six months the previous year.
> The LAT-AABS also improved scheduling efficiency for merits hearings. The average time from application to oral hearing decreased from 437 to 332 days, while written hearing timelines decreased from 528 to 421 days.
> The LAT adjudicates applications and resolves disputes concerning compensation claims and licensing activities regulated by the provincial government, including the activities of delegated administrative authorities. The LAT is comprised of two main divisions: General Service (LAT-GS) and Automobile Accident Benefits Service (LAT-AABS).
> Table 1: LAT-GS Caseload Overview ... Appeals received 774 645 625 595
### Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules (2025 consolidation) — Tribunals Ontario
<https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/lat/LAT-Rules_2025.html> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> 2.4 “CASE CONFERENCE” “Case Conference” has the same meaning as “Pre-Hearing Conference” as defined in the
> 14. Case Conferences 14.1 Directions And Orders At Case Conferences 14.2 Scope Of Case Conferences 14.4 Settlement Discussions 14.5 Case Conference Not Public 14.6 Party Attendance At Case Conferences
> 20.5 Settlement At Case Conferences
> Rule 20.4 provides that at least 10 days before a scheduled case conference, each party must file a case conference summary in such form as required by the Tribunal.
### Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016, S.O. 2016, c. 37, Sched. 8 — Ontario e-Laws
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/16f37> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016, S.O. 2016, c. 37, Sched. 8
> “Authority” means the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario continued under subsection 2 (1); (“Autorité”)
> “regulated sector” means a sector that is subject to, (a) the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 2020, (a.1) the Financial Professionals Title Protection Act, 2019, (b) the Insurance Act, (c) the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, (d) the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, (e) the Pension Benefits Act, (f) the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2015, or (g) such other legislation as may be prescribed; (“secteur réglementé”)
> 2 (1) The predecessor Authority and DICO are amalgamated and shall continue as one corporation without share capital under the name Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario in English and Autorité ontarienne de réglementation des services financiers in French. 2018, c. 17, Sched. 17, s. 2.
> Crown agency (3) The Authority is an agent of the Crown in right of Ontario.
> Objects of the Authority 3 (1) The objects of the Authority are, (a) to regulate and generally supervise the regulated sectors; (b) to contribute to public confidence in the regulated sectors; (c) to monitor and evaluate developments and trends in the regulated sectors; (d) to cooperate and collaborate with other regulators where appropriate; (e) to promote public education and knowledge about the regulated sectors; (f) to promote transparency and disclosure of information by the regulated sectors; (g) to deter deceptive or fraudulent conduct, practices and activities by the regulated sectors; and (h) to carry out such other objects as may be prescribed. 2017, c. 34, Sched. 16, s. 2.
> Same, financial services sectors (2) In addition to the objects set out in subsection (1), the objects of the Authority in respect of the financial services sectors are, (a) to promote high standards of business conduct; (b) to protect the rights and interests of consumers; and (c) to foster strong, sustainable, competitive and innovative financial services sectors. 2017, c. 34, Sched. 16, s. 2.
> “FSCO” means the former Financial Services Commission of Ontario that was established under the repealed Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997; (“CSFO”)
---
## What this establishes
Each item names the source it rests on. An item here that no quotation above
supports is a defect in this file, not a fact.
- The SABS is Ontario Regulation 34/10, titled "Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Effective September 1, 2010". Ontario e-Laws publishes it as "O. Reg. 34/10: STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFITS SCHEDULE - EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2010". (Note: the e-Laws body heading renders in small-caps markup, which flattens to the text string "Statutory Accident bEnefits Schedule" — this is a rendering artefact, not the regulation's title.)
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034>
- O. Reg. 34/10 is made under the Insurance Act. The e-Laws page carries the machine-readable field og:actTitle = "Insurance Act", and the regulation's own text refers to "the Act" throughout while defining its predecessor O. Reg. 403/96 as "made under the Act".
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034>
- The tribunal independently confirms the enabling statute: "Section 268 of the Insurance Act says that every motor vehicle liability policy provides specified benefits which are set out in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), a regulation made under the Insurance Act."
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/laws-rules-and-decisions/>
- The version of O. Reg. 34/10 retrieved on 2026-08-29 carries "Consolidation Period: From July 1, 2026 to the e-Laws currency date" and "Last amendment: 58/25". A SABS amendment took effect 1 July 2026; the tribunal notes "Changes to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule effective July 1, 2026 may impact your insurance benefits and the rules that apply to them." Any SABS copy predating that date is stale.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034>
- "Minor Injury Guideline" is defined in section 3(1) of O. Reg. 34/10 (heading: "Definitions and interpretation") as "a guideline, (a) that is issued by the Chief Executive Officer under subsection 268.3 (1.1) of the Act and published in The Ontario Gazette, and (b) that establishes a treatment framework in respect of one or more minor injuries".
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034>
- "minor injury" is separately defined in section 3(1) of O. Reg. 34/10 as "one or more of a sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation and includes any clinically associated sequelae to such an injury".
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034>
- The $3,500 monetary limit is set by section 18(1) of the SABS itself — NOT by the Minor Injury Guideline. Section 18 is headed "Monetary limits re medical and rehabilitation benefits" and s. 18(1) reads: "The sum of the medical and rehabilitation benefits payable in respect of an insured person who sustains an impairment that is predominantly a minor injury shall not exceed $3,500 plus the amount of any applicable harmonized sales tax payable under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) for accidents that occur on or after June 3, 2019 for any one accident, less the sum of all amounts paid in respect of the insured person in accordance with the Minor Injury Guideline."
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034>
- Section 18(2) of the SABS creates an exception to the $3,500 limit: it "does not apply to an insured person if his or her health practitioner determines and provides compelling evidence that the insured person has a pre-existing medical condition that was documented by a health practitioner before the accident and that will prevent the insured person from achieving maximal recovery from the minor injury" if subject to the limit or to the MIG's authorized goods and services.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034>
- For an insured person NOT subject to the s. 18(1) minor-injury limit, s. 18(3) caps medical, rehabilitation and attendant care benefits at $65,000 per accident (plus applicable HST, for accidents on or after June 3, 2019), or $1,000,000 where the person sustained a catastrophic impairment.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034>
- The Minor Injury Guideline is issued by the Chief Executive Officer under s. 268.3(1.1) of the Insurance Act, which empowers the CEO to "issue guidelines setting out the treatment, services, measures or goods applicable in respect of types of impairments for the purposes of payment of a medical or rehabilitation benefit provided under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule". Under s. 268.3(2), "a guideline shall be considered in any determination involving the interpretation of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule."
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i08>
- SABS disputes are heard by the Licence Appeal Tribunal. Insurance Act s. 280(1) applies "with respect to the resolution of disputes in respect of an insured person's entitlement to statutory accident benefits or in respect of the amount of statutory accident benefits to which an insured person is entitled", and s. 280(2) provides: "The insured person or the insurer may apply to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to resolve a dispute described in subsection (1)."
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i08>
- Insurance Act s. 280(3) bars the courts: "No person may bring a proceeding in any court with respect to a dispute described in subsection (1), other than an appeal from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal or an application for judicial review." Section 280(4) adds that "The dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule."
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i08>
- Insurance Act s. 279 defines "Licence Appeal Tribunal" as "the Licence Appeal Tribunal established under the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999". The e-Laws amendment history records the s. 279–280 scheme (2014, c. 9, Sched. 3, s. 14) as in force 01/04/2016.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i08>
- The Licence Appeal Tribunal is established by s. 2(1) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G: "There is hereby established a tribunal to be known in English as the Licence Appeal Tribunal and in French as Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis."
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/99l12>
- The LAT's accident-benefits division is the Automobile Accident Benefits Service (LAT-AABS), which exists to "Resolve a dispute about an insured person's entitlement to, or amount of, statutory motor vehicle accident benefits". The LAT has two divisions, LAT-AABS and LAT-GS (General Service).
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/>
- Either side may apply: an injured person may apply "if there is a disagreement about their entitlement to accident benefits or the amount of benefits that should be paid", and "If an insurance company believes an individual has been paid too much under their policy, the company can file a LAT-AABS application to have the money returned."
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/>
- The tribunal lists the governing instruments as the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, the Insurance Act, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act and the Auto Insurance Rate Stabilization Act, with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O. Reg. 34/10 among the related regulations. Procedure is governed by the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (effective November 17, 2025).
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/laws-rules-and-decisions/>
- A SABS application to the LAT must be commenced within two years: SABS s. 56 provides that "An application under subsection 280 (2) of the Act in respect of a benefit shall be commenced within two years after the insurer's refusal to pay the amount claimed." The tribunal states the same rule as "You must file an application within two years after receiving this notice from the insurance company."
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034>
- YES — the LAT publishes accident-benefit caseload volume figures. The Tribunals Ontario 2024-25 Annual Report contains "Table 2: LAT-AABS Caseload Overview", reporting for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025 and three prior years.
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2024-2025_Annual_Report.html>
- LAT-AABS appeals RECEIVED, by fiscal year: 16,002 (2024-2025); 16,142 (2023-2024); 13,983 (2022-2023); 15,800 (2021-2022). Reporting period for the most recent column is the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2024-2025_Annual_Report.html>
- LAT-AABS appeals CLOSED, by fiscal year: 18,884 (2024-2025); 18,016 (2023-2024); 16,257 (2022-2023); 11,668 (2021-2022).
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2024-2025_Annual_Report.html>
- LAT-AABS active appeals at fiscal year end: 9,191 (2024-2025); 12,016 (2023-2024); 13,903 (2022-2023); 16,204 (2021-2022).
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2024-2025_Annual_Report.html>
- LAT-AABS case conferences held: 12,081 (2024-2025); 11,556 (2023-2024); 11,411 (2022-2023); 7,752 (2021-2022). Decisions rendered: 1,104 (2024-2025); 1,088 (2023-2024); 587 (2022-2023); 555 (2021-2022).
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2024-2025_Annual_Report.html>
- LAT-AABS "Applications settled/withdrawn" (a single combined row — settlements are NOT reported separately from withdrawals): 17,603 (2024-2025); 16,941 (2023-2024); 15,337 (2022-2023); 11,116 (2021-2022).
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2024-2025_Annual_Report.html>
- Tribunal-wide LAT context for 2024-2025: the LAT managed "16,776 new matters—the second-highest annual intake on record", including "4,559 matters in Q4 alone, marking the highest quarterly appeal and application volume ever recorded at the LAT", and resolved "a record 19,627 files". Active caseload as at March 31, 2025 was 9,367, "down from a peak caseload of 17,465 in August 2022". (These totals cross-check the AABS table: 16,002 + 774 GS = 16,776; 18,884 + 743 GS = 19,627; 9,191 + 176 GS = 9,367.)
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2024-2025_Annual_Report.html>
- LAT-AABS timelines for 2024-2025: average time from application intake to first case conference "dropped to three months and three weeks, down from six months the previous year"; average time from application to oral hearing "decreased from 437 to 332 days, while written hearing timelines decreased from 528 to 421 days".
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2024-2025_Annual_Report.html>
- YES — the tribunal's own materials expressly point parties to mediation before applying. Under the heading "4. Consider other ways to resolve your dispute", the LAT-AABS Application and hearing process page states verbatim: "Before you apply to the LAT-AABS, you may want to consider negotiation or mediation services. Parties are encouraged to attempt to negotiate the claim at all times, including before filing at the LAT-AABS, and continuing negotiation discussions after a claim has been filed."
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/application-and-hearing-process/>
- PRECISION LIMIT on the mediation passage: the sentence does not use the word "private", does not name any provider, and does not say mediation may be used DURING a pending application. Mediation is mentioned only in the "before you apply" clause; the clause about continuing after filing refers specifically to "negotiation discussions", not to mediation. Any public copy should not extend it beyond that.
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/application-and-hearing-process/>
- The tribunal generally encourages pre-application settlement: "You are encouraged to talk to your insurance company and try to settle your dispute before starting the LAT-AABS process. Settling your dispute with your insurance company is the fastest and least costly way to resolve your claim."
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/application-and-hearing-process/>
- The LAT's own in-process settlement mechanism is the adjudicator-led case conference, not mediation. "A case conference is an opportunity for parties to attempt to settle their cases"; its goals include "help the parties reach a settlement"; and it is "led by an adjudicator whose role is to guide and support the parties in working to resolve the dispute", who "will provide his or her view on what could happen if the case went to a hearing". Case conferences are scheduled for two hours, usually within 45-60 days of the response, usually by telephone.
*Source:* <https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/application-and-hearing-process/>
- FSRA is the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, a corporation without share capital continued under s. 2(1) of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016, S.O. 2016, c. 37, Sched. 8, and "an agent of the Crown in right of Ontario" (s. 2(3)). It succeeded the former Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/16f37>
- FSRA's statutory objects (s. 3(1)) are "(a) to regulate and generally supervise the regulated sectors; (b) to contribute to public confidence in the regulated sectors; (c) to monitor and evaluate developments and trends in the regulated sectors; (d) to cooperate and collaborate with other regulators where appropriate; (e) to promote public education and knowledge about the regulated sectors; (f) to promote transparency and disclosure of information by the regulated sectors; (g) to deter deceptive or fraudulent conduct, practices and activities by the regulated sectors". For financial services sectors, s. 3(2) adds "(a) to promote high standards of business conduct; (b) to protect the rights and interests of consumers; and (c) to foster strong, sustainable, competitive and innovative financial services sectors."
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/16f37>
- Insurance — and therefore auto insurance — falls inside FSRA's mandate because "regulated sector" is defined in s. 1(1) of the FSRA Act to mean a sector subject to, among other statutes, "(b) the Insurance Act".
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/16f37>
- FSRA's specific operative role in the accident-benefits scheme is exercised through its Chief Executive Officer: the Insurance Act defines "Chief Executive Officer" as "the Chief Executive Officer appointed under subsection 10 (2) of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016", and s. 268.3(1) and (1.1) empower that officer to issue the SABS guidelines — including the Minor Injury Guideline.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i08>
- The SABS itself names FSRA as the publisher of operative guidelines, e.g. the definition of "authorized transportation expense" turns on "the most recent transportation expense guideline published by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario".
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034>
---
## What this does NOT establish
**Read this section before writing copy.** It is the half that keeps a page
honest, and on this project it is the half that has twice been skipped.
- **FSRA's description of itself and its auto-insurance role IN ITS OWN WORDS (from fsrao.ca).**
- *Searched:* WebSearch for FSRA/fsrao.ca auto insurance role; then direct retrieval of https://www.fsrao.ca/about-fsra/who-we-are and https://www.fsrao.ca/consumers/auto-insurance via WebFetch and via curl — plain, then with a Chrome UA, then with a full Safari UA plus Accept/Accept-Language/Sec-Fetch-* headers; also tried the media endpoint https://www.fsrao.ca/media/26151/download.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED — fsrao.ca is behind a Cloudflare interstitial. Every attempt returned HTTP 403 with a body whose title is "Just a moment..." (verified by reading the returned bytes, not by assuming an empty result). No FSRA-authored sentence was retrieved, so none is quoted. FSRA's identity and role are instead established above from primary statute (FSRA Act, 2016 s. 1(1), 2, 3; Insurance Act s. 268.3 and the "Chief Executive Officer" definition), which is stronger sourcing than a marketing page — but it is NOT FSRA speaking in its own voice. If a public page needs FSRA's own wording, someone must open fsrao.ca in a browser and commit the extract.
- **The text and contents of the Minor Injury Guideline document itself — what treatments it authorizes, its version number, and its effective date.**
- *Searched:* The MIG is issued by FSRA's CEO and published on fsrao.ca / in The Ontario Gazette. fsrao.ca was unreachable (Cloudflare 403, as above). The SABS text on e-Laws defines the MIG and incorporates it by reference but does not reproduce it.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED. What IS established is (a) the MIG's legal definition (SABS s. 3(1)), (b) its enabling power (Insurance Act s. 268.3(1.1)), and (c) the $3,500 limit, which sits in SABS s. 18(1) rather than in the Guideline. Do not describe the MIG's clinical contents, its treatment blocks, or its dollar figures as coming from the Guideline itself on the strength of this research.
- **Whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules contain any mediation provision, or whether the LAT offers a mediation service of its own.**
- *Searched:* Case-insensitive grep for 'mediat' across four fetched tribunal artefacts: the LAT Rules (tribunalsontario.ca/documents/lat/LAT-Rules_2025.html), the LAT-AABS landing page, the Laws/rules/decisions page, and the Application and hearing process page. Matches were printed with context and read, not counted.
- *Outcome:* RESULT — NEGATIVE, and this is a finding rather than a gap. 'mediat' occurs exactly ONCE across all four documents: the single sentence on the Application and hearing process page quoted above. The LAT Rules contain no mediation rule; their settlement machinery is the case conference (Rules 14, 14.4 'Settlement Discussions', 20.5 'Settlement At Case Conferences'). The LAT does not appear to offer mediation itself. Note this was a sweep whose output was read; it covers only those four documents, not every page on tribunalsontario.ca.
- **Whether the LAT publishes a breakdown of how many AABS applications settle (as opposed to being withdrawn).**
- *Searched:* Read Table 2 (LAT-AABS Caseload Overview) in the Tribunals Ontario 2024-25 Annual Report in full.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED — the report publishes a single combined row, 'Applications settled/withdrawn' (17,603 in 2024-2025). Settlements are not separated from withdrawals. Do NOT characterise that figure as a settlement rate or as a number of mediated/settled cases.
- **Whether a more recent annual report than 2024-25 exists (i.e. a 2025-26 report covering the year ending March 31, 2026).**
- *Searched:* WebSearch for Tribunals Ontario annual report LAT AABS caseload; retrieved the 2024-25 report, which is dated June 30, 2025 and is the most recent surfaced.
- *Outcome:* NOT CONFIRMED either way. The 2024-25 report (fiscal year ending March 31, 2025) is the latest located as of 2026-08-29, but no search was run specifically to rule out a 2025-26 edition. Given today's date, one may well have been published. Re-check before publishing any 'most recent' or 'latest available' framing around these figures.
- **What the SABS amendments effective July 1, 2026 actually changed.**
- *Searched:* Noted the consolidation banner on the e-Laws SABS page ('From July 1, 2026') and the tribunal's warning that 'Changes to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule effective July 1, 2026 may impact your insurance benefits'. Did not fetch O. Reg. 383/24 or the amending instruments.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED. Search-result snippets suggested that certain benefits became optional, but no primary amending regulation was fetched, so nothing about the substance of the July 2026 changes is asserted here. The s. 3(1) definitions and the s. 18(1) $3,500 limit quoted above ARE from the post-July-2026 consolidation and are current as retrieved.
---
## Adversarial check on this extract
An independent pass was run over the items above with one instruction: decide
whether the pasted quotations actually support each one, and flag anything
broader than its quote. `PARTLY` means the wording overreaches the source.
**Overreach found:** YES — see below
| Verdict | Claim | Why |
|---|---|---|
| **PARTLY** | 1. SABS is O. Reg. 34/10, titled as e-Laws publishes it — including the parenthetical note that the body heading is small-caps markup flattening to "Statutory Accident bEnefits Sch | The title strings are verbatim ("O. Reg. 34/10: STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFITS SCHEDULE - EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2010", "ONTARIO REGULATION 34/10"), and S5 independently quotes "Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O. Reg. 34/10 (Effective September 1, 2010)". OVERREACH: the entire parenthetical — "the e-Laws body heading renders in small-caps markup, which flattens to the text string 'Statutory Acc |
| **PARTLY** | 4. Retrieved version carries the July 1 2026 consolidation banner and "Last amendment: 58/25"; a SABS amendment took effect 1 July 2026; any SABS copy predating that date is stale | The banner, the last-amendment line, and the tribunal's "Changes to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule effective July 1, 2026" warning are all verbatim. OVERREACH: "Any SABS copy predating that date is stale" is a general editorial rule no quote states. "A SABS amendment took effect 1 July 2026" is also inferred — from a consolidation-period start date plus the tribunal's caution — with no a |
| **PARTLY** | 7. The $3,500 limit is set by SABS s. 18(1) — NOT by the Minor Injury Guideline | The s. 18 heading and the whole of s. 18(1) are verbatim, so "the limit sits in the regulation" is fully carried. OVERREACH: the words "NOT by the Minor Injury Guideline" are a statement about the Guideline's contents, and the extract's own notEstablished entry records that the MIG text was never retrieved. The quotes support only the positive form — the limit appears in the regulation's own text, |
| **PARTLY** | 10. MIG issued by the CEO under Insurance Act s. 268.3(1.1); under s. 268.3(2) "a guideline shall be considered in any determination..." | The 268.3(1.1) power and the SABS's own "issued by the Chief Executive Officer under subsection 268.3 (1.1) of the Act" are verbatim. OVERREACH: the s. 268.3(2) quotation silently drops the opening qualifier that is present in the pasted source quote — "Subject to section 268.2, a guideline shall be considered ..." — and presents an unconditional rule. Section 268.2 is not in evidence, so the scop |
| **PARTLY** | 13. s. 279 defines "Licence Appeal Tribunal"; the amendment history records the s. 279–280 scheme (2014, c. 9, Sched. 3, s. 14) as in force 01/04/2016 | The s. 279 definition is verbatim. OVERREACH: "records the s. 279–280 scheme ... as in force 01/04/2016" reads a bare e-Laws amendment-table line — "2014, c. 9, Sched. 3, s. 14 - 01/04/2016" — as a commencement statement. No quoted words say "in force", and the line names no sections. Minor, but it is an inference from page formatting rather than from text. |
| **PARTLY** | 17. The tribunal lists the governing instruments (LAT Act, Insurance Act, SPPA, Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, MVACA, AIRSA; O. Reg. 34/10); procedure governed by the LAT Rul | The lists and the Rules line are verbatim. OVERREACH: the source heading is "Related laws", and calling those items "the governing instruments" upgrades a related-reading list into a claim that each governs LAT-AABS proceedings — the Auto Insurance Rate Stabilization Act being the clearest example the quote will not carry. "Procedure is governed by" for the quoted heading "Rules of Practice" is an |
| **PARTLY** | 18. Two-year limitation: "SABS s. 56" provides ...; the tribunal states the same rule | The limitation sentence is verbatim. Two overreaches. (a) The section number "s. 56" appears in NO pasted quote — the quoted line carries only "O. Reg. 44/16, s. 6", which is an amending citation, not the section of the SABS. Drop the number or re-verify it. (b) "The tribunal states the same rule" equates "two years after the insurer's refusal to pay the amount claimed" with "two years after recei |
| **PARTLY** | 24. "Applications settled/withdrawn" is a single combined row — settlements are NOT reported separately from withdrawals | The combined row and its four figures are verbatim, so "Table 2 reports one combined row" is fully carried. OVERREACH: "settlements are NOT reported separately from withdrawals" is a negative about the report as a whole, while the pasted quotes cover only Table 2's rows. Keep it to the table: nothing pasted shows what the rest of the report does or does not break out. |
| **PARTLY** | 25. Tribunal-wide 2024-25 context (16,776 new matters; 4,559 in Q4; 19,627 resolved; 9,367 active; peak 17,465 Aug 2022) with an arithmetic cross-check against the AABS table | Every narrative figure is verbatim. OVERREACH is in the parenthetical cross-check: two of its three reconciliations use LAT-GS numbers that appear in NO pasted quote — GS closed 743 and GS active 176. The only GS quote is "Appeals received 774 645 625 595". So 16,002 + 774 = 16,776 is checkable from the quotes; 18,884 + 743 and 9,191 + 176 are not, and "all three reconcile" cannot be verified from |
| **PARTLY** | 27. YES — the tribunal's own materials expressly point parties to mediation before applying | The heading and the sentence are verbatim and do mention mediation. OVERREACH in the framing, not the quote: "expressly point parties to mediation" overstates "you may want to consider negotiation or mediation services" — permissive, unranked, and paired with negotiation, with no referral or direction. "the tribunal's own materials" (plural, a class) rests on ONE sentence on ONE page; the extract' |
| **PARTLY** | 30. The LAT's own in-process settlement mechanism is the adjudicator-led case conference, not mediation | Every descriptive element — settlement opportunity, "help the parties reach a settlement", adjudicator-led, the adjudicator's view of a hearing outcome, two hours, 45-60 days of the response, usually by telephone — is verbatim. OVERREACH: "is ... not mediation" and the exclusivity of "THE LAT's own in-process settlement mechanism" rest on an absence found by a grep over four documents (recorded in |
| **PARTLY** | 31. FSRA continued under s. 2(1) of the FSRA Act, 2016 as a corporation without share capital, an agent of the Crown (s. 2(3)); it succeeded the former FSCO | "Corporation without share capital", the s. 2(1) continuation and "an agent of the Crown in right of Ontario" are verbatim. OVERREACH: "It succeeded the former Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO)". The pasted s. 2(1) says FSRA continues from "the predecessor Authority and DICO" — neither term defined in any pasted quote — and the FSCO quote only defines FSCO as "the former ... Commissi |
| **PARTLY** | 32. FSRA's statutory objects, s. 3(1)(a)–(g) and s. 3(2)(a)–(c) | Everything quoted is verbatim. OVERREACH by omission: the pasted quote continues "(h) to carry out such other objects as may be prescribed", and the fact presents (a)–(g) as what the objects "are", with no ellipsis and no mention of (h). An enumerated list presented as complete when the source shows one more item. Add (h) or mark the truncation. |
| **PARTLY** | 33. Insurance — and therefore auto insurance — falls inside FSRA's mandate because "regulated sector" is defined in s. 1(1) to include "(b) the Insurance Act" | The "regulated sector" definition including "(b) the Insurance Act" is verbatim. Three things go beyond it: the section number "s. 1(1)" appears in no quote (the definition is pasted with no section reference); "and therefore auto insurance" is an inferential step absent from every FSRA Act quote, borrowed from the tribunal's separate s. 268 sentence; and "falls inside FSRA's mandate" is a conclus |
| **PARTLY** | 34. FSRA's specific operative role in the accident-benefits scheme is exercised through its CEO, who issues the SABS guidelines including the MIG | The CEO definition, s. 268.3(1) and (1.1), and the SABS's own "issued by the Chief Executive Officer under subsection 268.3 (1.1)" are all verbatim, so "the CEO issues the SABS guidelines, including the MIG" is fully carried. OVERREACH: "FSRA's specific operative role in the accident-benefits scheme IS exercised through its Chief Executive Officer" reads as exclusive. No quote surveys FSRA's role |
| **PARTLY** | 35. The SABS names FSRA as the publisher of operative guidelines, e.g. the definition of "authorized transportation expense" turns on the FSRA-published transportation expense guid | THIS IS THE CLASS-FROM-ONE-INSTANCE SHAPE the audit was looking for. The only evidence is a mid-sentence fragment: "(a) that are authorized by, and calculated by applying the rates set out in, the most recent transportation expense guideline published by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, and". Two overreaches. (a) "publisher of operative guidelines" — plural, a class — is dra |
*19 of 35 items were found fully supported; only the
others are tabled above.*
---
## Searches run
- `WebSearch: Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule O. Reg. 34/10 ontario.ca laws`
- `WebSearch: Licence Appeal Tribunal Automobile Accident Benefits Service tribunalsontario.ca`
- `WebSearch: Tribunals Ontario annual report Licence Appeal Tribunal AABS caseload applications received`
- `WebSearch: FSRA Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario auto insurance role "about us" fsrao.ca`
- `WebFetch: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034 (returned page shell only — superseded by curl)`
- `WebFetch: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-34-10/latest/o-reg-34-10.html (HTTP 403)`
- `WebFetch: https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/`
- `WebFetch: https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/laws-rules-and-decisions/`
- `WebFetch: https://www.fsrao.ca/about-fsra/who-we-are (HTTP 403)`
- `WebFetch: https://www.fsrao.ca/consumers/auto-insurance (HTTP 403)`
- `curl: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100034 (HTTP 200, 260,313 bytes — full SABS text)`
- `curl: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i08 (HTTP 200, 1,310,429 bytes — full Insurance Act)`
- `curl: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/99l12 (HTTP 200 — Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999)`
- `curl: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/16f37 (HTTP 200 — FSRA Act, 2016)`
- `curl: https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/ (HTTP 200)`
- `curl: https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/laws-rules-and-decisions/ (HTTP 200)`
- `curl: https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/application-and-hearing-process/ (HTTP 200)`
- `curl: https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/lat/LAT-Rules_2025.html (HTTP 200)`
- `curl: https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2024-2025_Annual_Report.html (HTTP 200, 506,740 bytes)`
- `curl: https://www.fsrao.ca/about-fsra/who-we-are — HTTP 403 plain, 403 with Chrome UA, 403 with full Safari UA + Sec-Fetch headers (Cloudflare 'Just a moment...' interstitial)`
- `curl: https://www.fsrao.ca/media/26151/download (HTTP 403, same Cloudflare interstitial)`
- `grep (read with context): 'Minor Injury Guideline' x28 and '3,500' x1 in the SABS text`
- `grep (read with context): case-insensitive 'mediat|settle|alternative dispute|case conference' across LAT-AABS landing, laws, process pages and the LAT Rules`
- `grep (read with context): 'Chief Executive Officer means' and '268.3' in the Insurance Act`
- `grep (read with context): 'regulated sector' and 'Objects of the Authority' in the FSRA Act`
- `Arithmetic cross-check of the annual-report table alignment against the report's own narrative totals (16,002+774=16,776; 18,884+743=19,627; 9,191+176=9,367 — all three reconcile)`
docs/reference/ontario-shareholder-remedies.md
+428
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,428 @@
# Ontario and federal shareholder, partnership and closely-held-business remedies; family-arbitration training re-checked
Committed under AGENTS.md R14 and the CLAUDE.md rule it encodes: **anything a
spec makes a claim about must be reachable from the repository.** Every fact
the six `/practice/*` pages state about the world is checkable here or it is
not published.
**Retrieved 2026-08-29.** Fetched from the primary sources listed below and
extracted with quotations pasted verbatim. This file is the artefact; the pages
cite it. Do not paraphrase a fact into a page that is not stated here.
> ⚠️ **A statute, a regulation and a tribunal page all move.** Every consolidation
> date and effective date below is as at the retrieval date and nothing more.
> Re-check before cutover, and before any republish that turns on one of them.
**Topic as researched:** Ontario/Canada shareholder, partnership and closely-held business disputes — statutory remedies (oppression, dissent/appraisal, winding up), the Partnerships Act, arbitration references in the corporations statutes; plus an independent re-check of Ontario family arbitration training requirements.
---
## Sources
| Kind | Source | URL |
|---|---|---|
| statute | Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16 (Ontario e-Laws, full text) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90b16> |
| statute | Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44 (Justice Laws, full text) | <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44/FullText.html> |
| statute | Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5 (Ontario e-Laws, full text) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p05> |
| regulation | O. Reg. 134/07: Family Arbitration, under the Arbitration Act, 1991 (Ontario e-Laws, current consolidation) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070134> |
| regulation | O. Reg. 134/07: Family Arbitration — original (v1) version, Ontario e-Laws source law | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070134/v1> |
| regulator | Training for family arbitrators — Government of Ontario (ontario.ca) | <https://www.ontario.ca/page/training-family-arbitrators> |
| statute | Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (Ontario e-Laws, full text) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f03> |
| statute | Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (Ontario e-Laws, full text) | <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/91a17> |
---
## Verbatim quotations
### Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16 (Ontario e-Laws, full text)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90b16> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Business Corporations Act
> R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER B.16
> Consolidation Period: From October 1, 2025 to the e-Laws currency date .
> Last amendment: 2024, c. 15, Sched. 1, s. 111 .
> Oppression remedy
> 248 (1) A complainant and, in the case of an offering corporation, the Commission may apply to the court for an order under this section. 1994, c. 27, s. 71 (33).
> Idem
> (2) Where, upon an application under subsection (1), the court is satisfied that in respect of a corporation or any of its affiliates,
> (a) any act or omission of the corporation or any of its affiliates effects or threatens to effect a result;
> (b) the business or affairs of the corporation or any of its affiliates are, have been or are threatened to be carried on or conducted in a manner; or
> (c) the powers of the directors of the corporation or any of its affiliates are, have been or are threatened to be exercised in a manner,
> that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of any security holder, creditor, director or officer of the corporation, the court may make an order to rectify the matters complained of. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 248 (2).
> Court order
> (3) In connection with an application under this section, the court may make any interim or final order it thinks fit including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
> (a) an order restraining the conduct complained of;
> (b) an order appointing a receiver or receiver-manager;
> (c) an order to regulate a corporation’s affairs by amending the articles or by-laws or creating or amending a unanimous shareholder agreement;
> ... (f) an order directing a corporation, subject to subsection (6), or any other person, to purchase securities of a security holder;
> ... (l) an order winding up the corporation under section 207;
> 245 In this Part,
> “action” means an action under this Act; (“action”)
> “complainant” means,
> (a) a registered holder or beneficial owner, and a former registered holder or beneficial owner, of a security of a corporation or any of its affiliates,
> (b) a director or an officer or a former director or officer of a corporation or of any of its affiliates,
> (c) any other person who, in the discretion of the court, is a proper person to make an application under this Part. (“plaignant”) R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 245.
> Rights of dissenting shareholders
> 185 (1) Subject to subsection (3) and to sections 186 and 248, if a corporation resolves to,
> (a) amend its articles under section 168 to add, remove or change restrictions on the issue, transfer or ownership of shares of a class or series of the shares of the corporation;
> ... (c) amalgamate with another corporation under sections 175 and 176;
> (d) be continued under the laws of another jurisdiction under section 181;
> ... (e) sell, lease or exchange all or substantially all its property under subsection 184 (3),
> a holder of shares of any class or series entitled to vote on the resolution may dissent. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 185 (1); 2017, c. 20, Sched. 6, s. 24.
> Winding up by court
> 207 (1) A corporation may be wound up by order of the court,
> (a) where the court is satisfied that in respect of the corporation or any of its affiliates,
> (i) any act or omission of the corporation or any of its affiliates effects a result,
> (ii) the business or affairs of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or have been carried on or conducted in a manner, or
> (iii) the powers of the directors of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or have been exercised in a manner,
> that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of any security holder, creditor, director or officer; or
> (b) where the court is satisfied that,
> (i) a unanimous shareholder agreement entitled a complaining shareholder to demand dissolution of the corporation after the occurrence of a specified event and that event has occurred,
> ... (iv) it is just and equitable for some reason, other than the bankruptcy or insolvency of the corporation, that it should be wound up; or
> (c) where the shareholders by special resolution authorize an application to be made to the court to wind up the corporation. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 207 (1).
> Matter that a unanimous shareholder agreement may provide
> (6) A unanimous shareholder agreement may, without restricting the generality of subsection (2), provide that,
> (a) any amendment of the unanimous shareholder agreement may be effected in the manner specified therein; and
> (b) in the event that shareholders who are parties to the unanimous shareholder agreement are unable to agree on or resolve any matter pertaining to the agreement, the matter may be referred to arbitration under such procedures and conditions as are specified in the unanimous shareholder agreement. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 108 (6).
### Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44 (Justice Laws, full text)
<https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44/FullText.html> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Canada Business Corporations Act ( R.S.C. , 1985, c. C-44)
> Marginal note: Application to court re oppression
> 241 (1) A complainant may apply to a court for an order under this section.
> Marginal note: Grounds
> (2) If, on an application under subsection (1), the court is satisfied that in respect of a corporation or any of its affiliates
> (a) any act or omission of the corporation or any of its affiliates effects a result,
> (b) the business or affairs of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or have been carried on or conducted in a manner, or
> (c) the powers of the directors of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or have been exercised in a manner
> that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of any security holder, creditor, director or officer, the court may make an order to rectify the matters complained of.
> Marginal note: Powers of court
> (3) In connection with an application under this section, the court may make any interim or final order it thinks fit including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
> (a) an order restraining the conduct complained of;
> (b) an order appointing a receiver or receiver-manager;
> (c) an order to regulate a corporation’s affairs by amending the articles or by-laws or creating or amending a unanimous shareholder agreement;
> ... (f) an order directing a corporation, subject to subsection (6), or any other person, to purchase securities of a security holder;
> ... (l) an order liquidating and dissolving the corporation;
> Marginal note: Alternative order
> (7) An applicant under this section may apply in the alternative for an order under section 214.
> 238 In this Part,
> complainant means
> (a) a registered holder or beneficial owner, and a former registered holder or beneficial owner, of a security of a corporation or any of its affiliates,
> (b) a director or an officer or a former director or officer of a corporation or any of its affiliates,
> (c) the Director, or
> (d) any other person who, in the discretion of a court, is a proper person to make an application under this Part. ( plaignant )
> Marginal note: Right to dissent
> 190 (1) Subject to sections 191 and 241, a holder of shares of any class of a corporation may dissent if the corporation is subject to an order under paragraph 192(4)(d) that affects the holder or if the corporation resolves to
> (a) amend its articles under section 173 or 174 to add, change or remove any provisions restricting or constraining the issue, transfer or ownership of shares of that class;
> ... (c) amalgamate otherwise than under section 184;
> (d) be continued under section 188;
> (e) sell, lease or exchange all or substantially all its property under subsection 189(3); or
> (f) carry out a going-private transaction or a squeeze-out transaction.
> Marginal note: Payment for shares
> (3) In addition to any other right the shareholder may have, but subject to subsection (26), a shareholder who complies with this section is entitled, when the action approved by the resolution from which the shareholder dissents or an order made under subsection 192(4) becomes effective, to be paid by the corporation the fair value of the shares in respect of which the shareholder dissents, determined as of the close of business on the day before the resolution was adopted or the order was made.
> Marginal note: Further grounds
> 214 (1) A court may order the liquidation and dissolution of a corporation or any of its affiliated corporations on the application of a shareholder,
> (a) if the court is satisfied that in respect of a corporation or any of its affiliates
> (i) any act or omission of the corporation or any of its affiliates effects a result,
> (ii) the business or affairs of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or have been carried on or conducted in a manner, or
> (iii) the powers of the directors of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or have been exercised in a manner
> that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of any security holder, creditor, director or officer; or
> (b) if the court is satisfied that
> (i) a unanimous shareholder agreement entitles a complaining shareholder to demand dissolution of the corporation after the occurrence of a specified event and that event has occurred, or
> (ii) it is just and equitable that the corporation should be liquidated and dissolved.
> 146 (1) An otherwise lawful written agreement among all the shareholders of a corporation, or among all the shareholders and one or more persons who are not shareholders, that restricts, in whole or in part, the powers of the directors to manage, or supervise the management of, the business and affairs of the corporation is valid.
### Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5 (Ontario e-Laws, full text)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p05> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Partnerships Act
> R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.5
> Consolidation Period: From October 1, 2023 to the e-Laws currency date .
> Last amendment: 2023, c. 9, Sched. 26 .
> Dissolution by expiry of term or notice
> 32 Subject to any agreement between the partners, a partnership is dissolved,
> (a) if entered into for a fixed term, by the expiration of that term;
> (b) if entered into for a single adventure or undertaking, by the termination of that adventure or undertaking; or
> (c) if entered into for an undefined time, by a partner giving notice to the other or others of his or her intention to dissolve the partnership, in which case the partnership is dissolved as from the date mentioned in the notice as the date of dissolution, or, if no date is so mentioned, as from the date of the communication of the notice. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5, s. 32.
> Dissolution by death or insolvency of partner
> 33 (1) Subject to any agreement between the partners, every partnership is dissolved as regards all the partners by the death or insolvency of a partner. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5, s. 33 (1).
> Where partner’s share charged for separate debt
> (2) A partnership may, at the option of the other partners, be dissolved if any partner suffers that partner’s share of the partnership property to be charged under this Act for that partner’s separate debt. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5, s. 33 (2).
> By illegality of business
> 34 A partnership is in every case dissolved by the happening of any event that makes it unlawful for the business of the firm to be carried on or for the members of the firm to carry it on in partnership. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5, s. 34.
> By the court
> 35 (1) On application by a partner, the court may order a dissolution of the partnership,
> (a) when a partner is found to be incapable as defined in the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 ;
> (b) when a partner, other than the partner suing, becomes in any other way permanently incapable of performing the partner’s part of the partnership contract;
> (c) when a partner, other than the partner suing, has been guilty of such conduct as, in the opinion of the court, regard being had to the nature of the business, is calculated to prejudicially affect the carrying on of the business;
> (d) when a partner, other than the partner suing, wilfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agreement, or otherwise so conducts himself or herself in matters relating to the partnership business that it is not reasonably practicable for the other partner or partners to carry on the business in partnership with the partner;
> (e) when the business of the partnership can only be carried on at a loss; or
> (f) when in any case circumstances have arisen that in the opinion of the court render it just and equitable that the partnership be dissolved. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5, s. 35; 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 57 (1).
> 39 On the dissolution of a partnership every partner is entitled, as against the other partners in the firm and all persons claiming through them in respect of their interests as partners, to have the property of the partnership applied in payment of the debts and liabilities of the firm and to have the surplus assets after such payment applied in payment of what may be due to the partners respectively after deducting what may be due from them as partners to the firm, and for that purpose any partner or the partner’s representative may, on the termination of the partnership, apply to the court to wind up the business and affairs of the firm. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5, s. 39.
### O. Reg. 134/07: Family Arbitration, under the Arbitration Act, 1991 (Ontario e-Laws, current consolidation)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070134> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> O. Reg. 134/07: FAMILY ARBITRATION, Under: Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17
> ONTARIO REGULATION 134/07
> family arbitration
> Consolidation Period: From June 4, 2021 to the e-Laws currency date .
> Last amendment: 411/21 .
> Qualifications of arbitrator
> 3. Every arbitrator who conducts a family arbitration shall have received the training approved by the Attorney General for the arbitrator or class of arbitrators, as set out on a Government of Ontario website. O. Reg. 134/07, s. 3; O. Reg. 411/21, s. 1.
> 5. I, ......................... (print name of arbitrator ) , confirm the following matters:
> i. I will treat the parties equally and fairly in the arbitration, as subsection 19 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 requires.
> ii. I have received the appropriate training approved by the Attorney General.
> iii. The parties were separately screened for power imbalances and domestic violence and I have considered the results of the screening and will do so throughout the arbitration, if I conduct one.
> iv. The parties were separately screened for power imbalances and domestic violence by someone other than me and I have considered his or her report on the results of the screening and will do so throughout the arbitration.
> 1. In this Regulation,
> “mediation-arbitration agreement” means a family arbitration agreement that provides that,
> (a) a mediation between the parties is to be conducted before any arbitration is conducted, and
> (b) if the mediation fails, the mediator shall arbitrate the dispute and make a binding resolution of it; (“convention de médiation-arbitrage”)
> (3) The arbitrator shall keep the record for at least 10 years after the date of the award. O. Reg. 134/07, s. 4 (3).
### O. Reg. 134/07: Family Arbitration — original (v1) version, Ontario e-Laws source law
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070134/v1> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Qualifications of arbitrator 3. Every arbitrator who conducts a family arbitration shall have received the training approved by the Attorney General for the arbitrator or class of arbitrators, as set out on the Ministry’s website. O. Reg. 134/07, s. 3.
### Training for family arbitrators — Government of Ontario (ontario.ca)
<https://www.ontario.ca/page/training-family-arbitrators> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> In Ontario, family arbitrators must complete training approved by the Attorney General. Arbitration awards made by family arbitrators who have not completed the required training are not enforceable by the court.
> You need to complete a training program of at least 14 hours (within one week) to learn about screening parties for domestic violence and power imbalances. You should ensure your training covers most of or all the following elements:
> Your training must follow the principles outlined in the Ontario Association for Family Mediation’s Policy on Domestic Violence and Power Imbalances , adjusted for arbitration.
> All family law arbitrators who are not a part of the Ontario Bar, or another Canadian bar, must complete 30 hours of training about Ontario family law. You do not need to complete this training all at once, but there are certain areas of family law that would be best to learn together.
> Your training must have been done within five years of an arbitration where you certified that you were trained, unless you have done on average at least two family arbitrations per year, during those five years.
> Ongoing training
> As a family arbitrator, you will also need to take ongoing training of 10 hours over any two-year period. Five of these hours must be related to domestic violence or power imbalance issues.
> Updated: August 12, 2021
> Published: May 04, 2021
### Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (Ontario e-Laws, full text)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f03> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> “family arbitration” means an arbitration that,
> (a) deals with matters that could be dealt with in a marriage contract, separation agreement, cohabitation agreement or paternity agreement under this Part, and
> (b) is conducted exclusively in accordance with the law of Ontario or of another Canadian jurisdiction; (“arbitrage familial”)
> 59.1 (1) Family arbitrations, family arbitration agreements and family arbitration awards are governed by this Act and by the Arbitration Act, 1991 . 2006, c. 1, s. 5 (10).
> Conditions for enforceability
> 59.6 (1) A family arbitration award is enforceable only if,
> (a) the family arbitration agreement under which the award is made is made in writing and complies with any regulations made under the Arbitration Act, 1991 ;
> (b) each of the parties to the agreement receives independent legal advice before making the agreement;
> (c) the requirements of section 38 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 are met (formal requirements, writing, reasons, delivery to parties); and
> (d) the arbitrator complies with any regulations made under the Arbitration Act, 1991. 2006, c. 1, s. 5 (10).
> 59.4 A family arbitration agreement and an award made under it are unenforceable unless the family arbitration agreement is entered into after the dispute to be arbitrated has arisen. 2006, c. 1, s. 5 (10).
### Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (Ontario e-Laws, full text)
<https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/91a17> — retrieved 2026-08-29
> Arbitration Act, 1991
> S.O. 1991, Chapter 17
> Consolidation Period: From March 22, 2017 to the e-Laws currency date .
> Last amendment: 2017, c. 2, Sched. 5, s. 13 .
> Family arbitrations, agreements and awards
> 2.1 (1) Family arbitrations, family arbitration agreements and family arbitration awards are governed by this Act and by the Family Law Act . 2006, c. 1, s. 1 (2).
> Conflict
> (2) In the event of conflict between this Act and the Family Law Act, the Family Law Act prevails. 2006, c. 1, s. 1 (2).
> Other third-party decision-making processes in family matters
> 2.2 (1) When a decision about a matter described in clause (a) of the definition of “family arbitration” in section 1 is made by a third person in a process that is not conducted exclusively in accordance with the law of Ontario or of another Canadian jurisdiction,
> (a) the process is not a family arbitration; and
> (b) the decision is not a family arbitration award and has no legal effect. 2006, c. 1, s. 1 (2).
> Family arbitration awards
> 50.1 Family arbitration awards are enforceable only under the Family Law Act . 2006, c. 1, s. 1 (10).
---
## What this establishes
Each item names the source it rests on. An item here that no quotation above
supports is a defect in this file, not a fact.
- OPPRESSION REMEDY (Ontario): the oppression remedy is s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16. Section 248(1) gives a 'complainant' (and, for an offering corporation, the Commission) standing to apply to the court. The operative test in s. 248(2) is conduct 'that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of any security holder, creditor, director or officer of the corporation', on which 'the court may make an order to rectify the matters complained of.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90b16>
- The OBCA oppression provision is broader than its federal counterpart in one respect visible on the face of the text: s. 248(2) reaches conduct that 'effects or threatens to effect a result' and affairs 'are, have been or are threatened to be carried on', i.e. it expressly captures threatened conduct. The CBCA equivalent (s. 241(2)) uses only 'effects a result' and 'are or have been carried on', with no 'threatened' language.
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44/FullText.html>
- OBCA s. 248(3) lists the remedial orders available, including '(f) an order directing a corporation, subject to subsection (6), or any other person, to purchase securities of a security holder' (the buy-out order) and '(l) an order winding up the corporation under section 207'. Payment under (3)(f) or (g) is barred by s. 248(6) where the corporation is or would become unable to pay its liabilities as they become due.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90b16>
- 'Complainant' is defined in OBCA s. 245 to include a registered holder or beneficial owner (and former holder/owner) of a security, a director or officer (or former director or officer), and '(c) any other person who, in the discretion of the court, is a proper person to make an application under this Part.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90b16>
- OPPRESSION REMEDY (federal): the equivalent is s. 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44, marginal note 'Application to court re oppression'. Section 241(1) provides 'A complainant may apply to a court for an order under this section', and the s. 241(2) test is conduct 'that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of any security holder, creditor, director or officer', on which 'the court may make an order to rectify the matters complained of.'
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44/FullText.html>
- CBCA s. 241(3) lists the same remedial menu as the OBCA, including a buy-out order at (3)(f) and, at (3)(l), 'an order liquidating and dissolving the corporation'. CBCA s. 241(7) expressly permits an oppression applicant to 'apply in the alternative for an order under section 214'.
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44/FullText.html>
- 'Complainant' is defined in CBCA s. 238 and, unlike the Ontario definition, expressly includes '(c) the Director' alongside security holders, former security holders, directors, officers, and any other person a court in its discretion finds a proper person.
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44/FullText.html>
- APPRAISAL / DISSENT RIGHTS (Ontario): OBCA s. 185, headed 'Rights of dissenting shareholders'. Section 185(1) is expressed 'Subject to subsection (3) and to sections 186 and 248' and lists the triggering resolutions (certain article amendments, amalgamation, continuance out of the jurisdiction, and sale/lease/exchange of all or substantially all property under s. 184(3)).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90b16>
- APPRAISAL / DISSENT RIGHTS (federal): CBCA s. 190, marginal note 'Right to dissent'. Section 190(3) states the remedy: a complying shareholder 'is entitled ... to be paid by the corporation the fair value of the shares in respect of which the shareholder dissents, determined as of the close of business on the day before the resolution was adopted or the order was made.' The CBCA list of triggers includes, at s. 190(1)(f), 'carry out a going-private transaction or a squeeze-out transaction'.
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44/FullText.html>
- A shareholder cannot use both remedies on the same amendment: OBCA s. 248(5) and CBCA s. 241(5) each provide that a shareholder is not entitled to dissent (under s. 185 / s. 190 respectively) if an amendment to the articles is effected under the oppression section.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90b16>
- WINDING UP / JUST AND EQUITABLE (Ontario): OBCA s. 207, headed 'Winding up by court'. Section 207(1)(a) reproduces the oppression grounds; s. 207(1)(b)(iv) is the just-and-equitable ground — 'it is just and equitable for some reason, other than the bankruptcy or insolvency of the corporation, that it should be wound up'. Section 207(1)(b)(i) separately covers a unanimous shareholder agreement that entitled a shareholder to demand dissolution on a specified event that has occurred. By s. 207(2), on such an application 'the court may make such order under this section or section 248 as it thinks fit.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90b16>
- LIQUIDATION AND DISSOLUTION / JUST AND EQUITABLE (federal): CBCA s. 214, marginal note 'Further grounds'. A court may order liquidation and dissolution 'on the application of a shareholder' on the oppression grounds in s. 214(1)(a) or, under s. 214(1)(b)(ii), where 'it is just and equitable that the corporation should be liquidated and dissolved.' Section 214(2) mirrors the Ontario cross-reference: 'a court may make such order under this section or section 241 as it thinks fit.'
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44/FullText.html>
- PARTNERSHIPS ACT (Ontario) citation: Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.5. The e-Laws consolidation retrieved was 'From October 1, 2023 to the e-Laws currency date', last amendment 2023, c. 9, Sched. 26.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p05>
- Partnerships Act dissolution provisions run from s. 32 under the heading 'Dissolution of Partnership': s. 32 (expiry of term, completion of the adventure, or notice by a partner where the partnership is for an undefined time); s. 33 (death or insolvency of a partner; and, at the option of the other partners, where a partner's share is charged for a separate debt); s. 34 (illegality of the business); and s. 35 (dissolution by the court).
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p05>
- Sections 32 and 33 of the Partnerships Act are each expressed 'Subject to any agreement between the partners' — so a partnership agreement can displace them. Section 34 (illegality) is not so qualified: 'A partnership is in every case dissolved by the happening of any event that makes it unlawful for the business of the firm to be carried on'.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p05>
- Partnerships Act s. 35(1) sets out six grounds on which, 'On application by a partner, the court may order a dissolution of the partnership', including (d) wilful or persistent breach of the partnership agreement or conduct such 'that it is not reasonably practicable for the other partner or partners to carry on the business in partnership with the partner'; (e) 'when the business of the partnership can only be carried on at a loss'; and (f) the just-and-equitable ground — 'when in any case circumstances have arisen that in the opinion of the court render it just and equitable that the partnership be dissolved.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p05>
- Partnerships Act s. 39 provides that on dissolution every partner is entitled to have partnership property applied to the firm's debts and the surplus distributed, and that 'for that purpose any partner or the partner's representative may, on the termination of the partnership, apply to the court to wind up the business and affairs of the firm.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p05>
- ARBITRATION IN THE CORPORATIONS STATUTES — Ontario: YES, in exactly one place. OBCA s. 108(6)(b) provides that a unanimous shareholder agreement may provide that 'in the event that shareholders who are parties to the unanimous shareholder agreement are unable to agree on or resolve any matter pertaining to the agreement, the matter may be referred to arbitration under such procedures and conditions as are specified in the unanimous shareholder agreement.' This is the only occurrence of the string 'arbitrat' in the whole Act — a case-insensitive search returned exactly 1 hit in both the converted text and the raw HTML, and the hit was read in full context.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90b16>
- ARBITRATION IN THE CORPORATIONS STATUTES — federal: NO. A case-insensitive search of the complete CBCA full text for 'arbitrat' returned zero occurrences, in both the converted text and the raw HTML. The instrument was validated on the same file in the same run ('oppressive' returned 3 hits, 'unanimous shareholder agreement' 26), and the retrieved document was confirmed complete (it runs through s. 267, the Schedule of Offences, and the Related Provisions). The CBCA does validate unanimous shareholder agreements at s. 146(1) but, unlike OBCA s. 108(6)(b), says nothing about referring a dispute under one to arbitration.
*Source:* <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44/FullText.html>
- Neither corporations statute mentions mediation. A search for 'mediat' returned 23 hits in the CBCA and 25 in the OBCA; every one was read and all are 'immediately' or 'immediate'. The Ontario Partnerships Act likewise contains zero occurrences of 'arbitrat', and its only 'mediat' hits (4) are 'immediately'.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p05>
- FAMILY ARBITRATION — the 14-hour screening requirement is CONFIRMED. The Government of Ontario page states: 'You need to complete a training program of at least 14 hours (within one week) to learn about screening parties for domestic violence and power imbalances.' This independently reproduces the figure in the repo's existing extract at docs/reference/ontario-family-arbitration-training.md.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/page/training-family-arbitrators>
- FAMILY ARBITRATION — the 30-hour Ontario family law requirement is CONFIRMED, and it applies only to non-lawyers: 'All family law arbitrators who are not a part of the Ontario Bar, or another Canadian bar, must complete 30 hours of training about Ontario family law.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/page/training-family-arbitrators>
- FAMILY ARBITRATION — the ongoing-training requirement is CONFIRMED: 'As a family arbitrator, you will also need to take ongoing training of 10 hours over any two-year period. Five of these hours must be related to domestic violence or power imbalance issues.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/page/training-family-arbitrators>
- FAMILY ARBITRATION — a currency requirement the repo's existing extract does NOT record: 'Your training must have been done within five years of an arbitration where you certified that you were trained, unless you have done on average at least two family arbitrations per year, during those five years.' This is a fourth requirement alongside the three hour figures.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/page/training-family-arbitrators>
- FAMILY ARBITRATION — the enforcement consequence, stated by the government page itself: 'In Ontario, family arbitrators must complete training approved by the Attorney General. Arbitration awards made by family arbitrators who have not completed the required training are not enforceable by the court.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/page/training-family-arbitrators>
- IMPORTANT QUALIFICATION on the word 'prescribed': the hour figures are NOT set out in the regulation. O. Reg. 134/07, s. 3 ('Qualifications of arbitrator') requires only that 'Every arbitrator who conducts a family arbitration shall have received the training approved by the Attorney General for the arbitrator or class of arbitrators, as set out on a Government of Ontario website.' The regulation makes the training mandatory by reference; the content and the hours live on the ontario.ca page, which the Attorney General can change without amending the regulation.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070134>
- The hour figures have NEVER appeared in O. Reg. 134/07. The original (v1) version of s. 3 reads identically except that it referred to 'the Ministry's website'; O. Reg. 411/21, s. 1 changed only that phrase to 'a Government of Ontario website'. So the delegation to a web page has been the mechanism since the regulation was made.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070134/v1>
- The screening requirement has a second, harder anchor than the government web page: the arbitrator's certificate prescribed by O. Reg. 134/07, s. 2(4) para. 5 requires the arbitrator to confirm in the agreement itself both 'ii. I have received the appropriate training approved by the Attorney General' and that 'The parties were separately screened for power imbalances and domestic violence and I have considered the results of the screening and will do so throughout the arbitration'. This text IS in the regulation.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070134>
- The statutory chain for family arbitration: Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 51 defines 'family arbitration'; s. 59.1(1) provides that family arbitrations 'are governed by this Act and by the Arbitration Act, 1991'; and s. 59.6(1) makes an award 'enforceable only if' the agreement complies with the regulations, each party 'receives independent legal advice before making the agreement', s. 38 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 is met, and '(d) the arbitrator complies with any regulations made under the Arbitration Act, 1991' — which is the provision that makes O. Reg. 134/07 s. 3 training bite on enforceability.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f03>
- Family Law Act s. 59.4 requires that a family arbitration agreement be entered into after the dispute has arisen: 'A family arbitration agreement and an award made under it are unenforceable unless the family arbitration agreement is entered into after the dispute to be arbitrated has arisen.' This is a structural difference from commercial arbitration, where pre-dispute clauses are the norm.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f03>
- Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s. 2.1(1) states that family arbitrations 'are governed by this Act and by the Family Law Act', and s. 2.1(2) that 'In the event of conflict between this Act and the Family Law Act, the Family Law Act prevails.' Section 2.2(1) provides that a family-matter decision made in a process 'not conducted exclusively in accordance with the law of Ontario or of another Canadian jurisdiction' is not a family arbitration and 'has no legal effect'. Section 50.1: 'Family arbitration awards are enforceable only under the Family Law Act.'
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/91a17>
- O. Reg. 134/07 defines 'mediation-arbitration agreement' for family matters as a family arbitration agreement providing that '(a) a mediation between the parties is to be conducted before any arbitration is conducted, and (b) if the mediation fails, the mediator shall arbitrate the dispute and make a binding resolution of it' — a definition of med-arb that exists in Ontario law only in the family context.
*Source:* <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070134>
---
## What this does NOT establish
**Read this section before writing copy.** It is the half that keeps a page
honest, and on this project it is the half that has twice been skipped.
- **Does the word 'prescribed' accurately describe Ontario's family arbitrator training hours, as AGENTS.md §9 Q39 and line 1952 currently put it?**
- *Searched:* Fetched the current consolidation of O. Reg. 134/07 and its original (v1) version from ontario.ca, and read s. 3 in full in both.
- *Outcome:* NOT CONFIRMED — and this looks like a wording defect in the repo, not a sourcing gap. No hour figure appears anywhere in the regulation, in any version. The regulation requires 'the training approved by the Attorney General ... as set out on a Government of Ontario website'; the 14/30/10 figures are administratively approved training published on a web page the Attorney General can revise without amending the regulation. The requirement is mandatory and enforceability-bearing, so 'required' or 'approved by the Attorney General' is accurate; 'prescribed' implies the numbers sit in the instrument, and they do not. Flagging for Pouya rather than fixing — AGENTS.md is his record.
- **Is the ontario.ca training page still the operative statement of approved training as at 2026-08-29, given it carries 'Updated: August 12, 2021'?**
- *Searched:* Fetched the live page today (HTTP 200) and read its own date stamps; also fetched the current e-Laws consolidation of O. Reg. 134/07 to confirm s. 3 still points to a Government of Ontario website.
- *Outcome:* PARTLY. The page is live today and the regulation still delegates to it, so it is the operative source by the regulation's own terms. But its content stamp is 'Updated: August 12, 2021 / Published: May 04, 2021'. I found no separate published register of Attorney General training approvals against which to cross-check, so I cannot independently confirm the figures have not been superseded by an approval not reflected on the page. Treat the hours as 'what the government page states as at 2026-08-29'.
- **Do the regulations made under the CBCA (as distinct from the Act) say anything about arbitration?**
- *Searched:* Only the CBCA Act full text at laws-lois.justice.gc.ca was retrieved and searched. The Canada Business Corporations Regulations, 2001 (SOR/2001-512) were not fetched.
- *Outcome:* NOT SEARCHED. The negative finding above is scoped to the Act only. If the site is going to say anything about federal corporate arbitration, the regulations should be checked too before that claim is written.
- **Do any of these sources support a claim about what qualifications a COMMERCIAL arbitrator or mediator in Ontario needs?**
- *Searched:* All eight sources above were searched for arbitration/mediation references; the family arbitration chain (FLA ss. 51, 59.1-59.7; Arbitration Act ss. 2.1, 2.2, 50.1; O. Reg. 134/07) was read in full.
- *Outcome:* NOT ESTABLISHED, and this confirms the honest limit the repo's own extract already records. Every training and qualification requirement found is expressly tied to 'family arbitration' as defined in FLA s. 51. Nothing retrieved states, either way, what a commercial arbitrator or mediator requires. The absence of a commercial requirement in family-specific instruments is not authority that none exists — AGENTS.md §4 is right to carry the commercial half as Pouya's stated position rather than as a sourced fact, and nothing in this pass changes that.
- **Is there a statutory buy-out or shotgun mechanism for closely-held Ontario corporations outside the oppression remedy?**
- *Searched:* Read OBCA ss. 108, 185, 207, 245-250 and CBCA ss. 146, 190, 214, 238-241 in full text.
- *Outcome:* NOT FOUND as a freestanding mechanism. The buy-out order exists only as a discretionary remedy the court may grant under OBCA s. 248(3)(f) / CBCA s. 241(3)(f), subject to the solvency limit in s. 248(6) / s. 241(6). Shotgun and buy-sell clauses are creatures of the shareholders' agreement, not of either statute. Do not let site copy imply a statutory buy-out right.
---
## Adversarial check on this extract
An independent pass was run over the items above with one instruction: decide
whether the pasted quotations actually support each one, and flag anything
broader than its quote. `PARTLY` means the wording overreaches the source.
**Overreach found:** YES — see below
| Verdict | Claim | Why |
|---|---|---|
| **PARTLY** | [3] OBCA s. 248(3) remedial orders incl. (3)(f) buy-out and (3)(l) winding up; plus 'Payment under (3)(f) or (g) is barred by s. 248(6) where the corporation is or would become una | The first sentence is verbatim in the quote. The second sentence overreaches: no quote of s. 248(6) is pasted anywhere, and the words 'is or would become unable to pay its liabilities as they become due' appear in no source. The quote's own words go only as far as 'subject to subsection (6)' — it does not disclose what subsection (6) says. Paragraph '(g)' also appears in no pasted quote at all. Ov |
| **PARTLY** | [6] 'CBCA s. 241(3) lists the same remedial menu as the OBCA', incl. (3)(f) buy-out and (3)(l) liquidation; s. 241(7) alternative application under s. 214 | The (3)(f), (3)(l) and 241(7) elements are verbatim in the quotes. 'lists the same remedial menu as the OBCA' overreaches: both pasted s. 248(3) and s. 241(3) quotes are elided (each contains '...'), so the full menus were never put side by side, and the one paragraph the fact itself compares differs textually — OBCA (l) is 'an order winding up the corporation under section 207', CBCA (l) is 'an o |
| **PARTLY** | [8] OBCA s. 185 dissent rights — 'Subject to subsection (3) and to sections 186 and 248' and the triggering resolutions | The heading, the 'Subject to' clause and the four named triggers are in the quote. But the pasted s. 185(1) is elided ('... (c) amalgamate') so at least paragraph (b) is missing from the source text, while the fact presents its parenthetical as 'the triggering resolutions' — a closed list a copywriter would reproduce as complete. Overreaching words: 'lists the triggering resolutions (…)' read as e |
| **NOT** | [10] OBCA s. 248(5) and CBCA s. 241(5) each bar dissent where an article amendment is effected under the oppression section | No quote of s. 248(5) or s. 241(5) appears anywhere in the source set — the OBCA and CBCA quote blocks jump from (3) to other sections. The proposition may well be true in the world, but nothing pasted supports any part of it, including the characterisation 'A shareholder cannot use both remedies on the same amendment'. |
| **PARTLY** | [11] OBCA s. 207 winding up — 207(1)(a) oppression grounds, (b)(iv) just and equitable, (b)(i) USA dissolution trigger; and 'By s. 207(2) … the court may make such order under this | Everything up to and including s. 207(1)(b)(iv) and (b)(i) is verbatim in the two pasted 207(1) quotes. The final sentence is not: no quote of s. 207(2) exists in the source set, yet the fact renders it inside quotation marks as source text. Overreaching words: "By s. 207(2), on such an application 'the court may make such order under this section or section 248 as it thinks fit.'" — presented as |
| **PARTLY** | [12] CBCA s. 214 liquidation/dissolution — 214(1)(a) and (b)(ii); and 'Section 214(2) mirrors the Ontario cross-reference: a court may make such order under this section or section | The marginal note 'Further grounds', 'on the application of a shareholder', the oppression grounds and the just-and-equitable ground are verbatim in the quote. The s. 214(2) sentence is not supported by any pasted quote and is again presented in quotation marks; the word 'mirrors' additionally rests on the equally unquoted OBCA s. 207(2). Overreaching words: the whole final sentence 'Section 214(2 |
| **PARTLY** | [14] Partnerships Act dissolution provisions 'run from s. 32 under the heading Dissolution of Partnership'; content of ss. 32, 33, 34, 35 | The substance of ss. 32, 33(1), 33(2), 34 and 35 is verbatim in the quotes. The structural claim is not: the string 'Dissolution of Partnership' appears in no pasted quote — the quoted headings are 'Dissolution by expiry of term or notice', 'Dissolution by death or insolvency of partner', 'By illegality of business' and 'By the court'. Nor does anything quoted show where the dissolution provisions |
| **PARTLY** | [15] 'Sections 32 and 33 are each expressed Subject to any agreement between the partners — so a partnership agreement can displace them'; s. 34 not so qualified | s. 32 and s. 33(1) do carry the phrase in the quotes, and the s. 34 quote demonstrably lacks it. But the quoted s. 33(2) — 'A partnership may, at the option of the other partners, be dissolved if any partner suffers that partner's share … to be charged' — carries no 'subject to any agreement' qualifier, so a section-level statement about 's. 33' is broader than the pasted text. 'so a partnership a |
| **PARTLY** | [18] Arbitration in the OBCA: 'YES, in exactly one place' — s. 108(6)(b), 'the only occurrence of the string arbitrat in the whole Act' | The text of s. 108(6)(b) is pasted verbatim and fully supports the affirmative half. The exhaustive half cannot be supported by any quote: a pasted excerpt cannot establish that a string occurs nowhere else in a 732 KB statute — that claim rests on a grep reported in searchesRun, not on quoted source text, and it is the kind of statement that would appear on a public page as a bare assertion about |
| **PARTLY** | [19] Arbitration in the CBCA: 'NO' — zero occurrences of 'arbitrat'; document confirmed complete; CBCA validates USAs at s. 146(1) but says nothing about arbitration | Only the last clause is quote-backed: s. 146(1) is pasted and does validate unanimous shareholder agreements without mentioning arbitration. Everything else is an absence claim about a whole statute that no pasted quote can carry — the zero-hit counts, the control-hit validation, and the completeness assertion ('runs through s. 267, the Schedule of Offences, and the Related Provisions') appear in |
| **NOT** | [20] 'Neither corporations statute mentions mediation' (23 CBCA / 25 OBCA hits, all 'immediately'); Partnerships Act has zero 'arbitrat' and 4 'mediat' hits, all 'immediately' | No pasted quote supports any part of this. It is entirely a report of grep output listed in searchesRun, and the sources contain no quoted text in which the word does or does not appear. The scope also runs past the cited source: the item is filed against the Partnerships Act URL while asserting negatives about both the OBCA and the CBCA. This is a three-statute class statement with zero quoted in |
| **PARTLY** | [22] The 30-hour Ontario family law requirement 'applies only to non-lawyers' | The 30-hour sentence is verbatim, but the class it describes is 'family law arbitrators who are not a part of the Ontario Bar, or another Canadian bar' — membership of a Canadian bar, not lawyer status. A foreign-qualified lawyer is a lawyer and is caught by the quoted words, so 'non-lawyers' widens (and misdescribes) the quoted class. 'only' also converts a positive requirement on one class into |
| **PARTLY** | [26] 'Prescribed' is inaccurate: the hour figures are NOT in O. Reg. 134/07; s. 3 delegates to a Government of Ontario website the AG can change without amending the regulation | The s. 3 quote fully supports the delegation mechanism and the exact words 'as set out on a Government of Ontario website'. The absence half is not quote-provable: the pasted regulation excerpts are four fragments (ss. 1, 2(4) para 5, 3, 4(3)), which cannot show that no hour figure appears anywhere in the instrument. 'which the Attorney General can change without amending the regulation' is also a |
| **PARTLY** | [27] 'The hour figures have NEVER appeared in O. Reg. 134/07'; v1 s. 3 identical but for 'the Ministry's website'; O. Reg. 411/21 s. 1 changed only that phrase | Comparing the two pasted texts of s. 3 supports the wording change and its amending citation. It does not support an all-versions, whole-regulation negative: only s. 3 is quoted from v1, and nothing at all is quoted from v2 or v3 despite searchesRun saying they were fetched. Overreaching words: 'The hour figures have NEVER appeared in O. Reg. 134/07' and 'changed only that phrase' as a statement a |
| **PARTLY** | [28] The certificate 'prescribed by O. Reg. 134/07, s. 2(4) para. 5' requires the arbitrator to confirm 'in the agreement itself' both item ii (training) and item iii (screening) | The certificate text is pasted and does contain items ii and iii verbatim. Three things exceed it. The pinpoint: the quote begins bare, at '5.', with nothing showing it sits in s. 2(4). The location: nothing quoted says the certificate goes 'in the agreement itself'. And the conjunction: the quote sets out iii (screened by me) and iv (screened by someone other than me) as apparent alternatives, so |
| **PARTLY** | [29] Statutory chain: FLA s. 51 defines 'family arbitration'; s. 59.1(1) governance; s. 59.6(1) enforceability conditions, (d) making O. Reg. 134/07 s. 3 bite | The definition, s. 59.1(1) and all four limbs of s. 59.6(1) are pasted verbatim, and the closing synthesis follows directly from quoted 59.6(1)(d) plus the quoted regulation heading ('Under: Arbitration Act, 1991'). The one thing outside the quotes is the pinpoint: the definition quote carries no section number, so 's. 51' is supplied from outside the source. Overreaching words: 's. 51' as a pinpo |
| **PARTLY** | [30] FLA s. 59.4 requires a post-dispute family arbitration agreement; 'This is a structural difference from commercial arbitration, where pre-dispute clauses are the norm.' | The s. 59.4 quote is verbatim and supports the first sentence entirely. The second sentence is supported by nothing: no source in the set says anything about commercial arbitration practice, and the extract's own notEstablished section concedes that nothing retrieved speaks to commercial arbitration. Overreaching words: 'This is a structural difference from commercial arbitration, where pre-disput |
| **PARTLY** | [32] O. Reg. 134/07 definition of 'mediation-arbitration agreement' — 'a definition of med-arb that exists in Ontario law only in the family context' | The definition itself is pasted verbatim and fully supports the first half. The trailing clause is a negative about the whole of Ontario law drawn from a family-specific regulation — precisely the class statement from a single instance this audit is looking for. The greps reported in searchesRun covered three corporations/partnership statutes and did not search for 'med-arb' or for the definition |
*14 of 32 items were found fully supported; only the
others are tabled above.*
---
## Searches run
- `curl https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90b16 (OBCA full text, HTTP 200, 732,644 bytes)`
- `grep -c -i 'arbitrat' obca.txt / obca.html — 1 hit each, read in full context (s. 108(6)(b))`
- `grep -o -i '[a-z]*mediat[a-z]*' obca.txt | sort | uniq -c — 25 hits, all 'immediately'`
- `curl https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44/FullText.html (CBCA full text, HTTP 200, 883,143 bytes)`
- `grep -c -i 'arbitrat' cbca.txt / cbca.html — 0 hits in both; instrument validated with controls 'oppressive' (3), 'unanimous shareholder agreement' (26); document completeness confirmed to s. 267 + Schedule + Related Provisions`
- `grep -o -i '[a-z]*mediat[a-z]*' cbca.txt | sort | uniq -c — 23 hits, all 'immediately'/'immediate'`
- `curl https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p05 (Partnerships Act, HTTP 200); grep 'arbitrat' — 0 hits in text and raw HTML, control 'partnership' 127 hits`
- `curl https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070134 (O. Reg. 134/07 current consolidation, HTTP 200)`
- `curl https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070134/v1, /v2, /v3 — historical versions of s. 3, to test whether hour figures were ever in the regulation`
- `WebSearch (allowed_domains: ontario.ca): 'Ontario family arbitrator training approved by the Attorney General hours screening domestic violence' — used only to locate the URL; snippets not relied on`
- `curl https://www.ontario.ca/page/training-family-arbitrators (HTTP 200) — primary source fetched and quoted directly rather than via search snippet`
- `curl https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f03 (Family Law Act, HTTP 200) — ss. 51, 59.1, 59.4, 59.6, 59.7`
- `curl https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/91a17 (Arbitration Act, 1991, HTTP 200) — ss. 2.1, 2.2, 50.1`
- `git grep -n -i '14 hours|30 hours|10 hours|screening' — located the repo's existing extract at docs/reference/ontario-family-arbitration-training.md and the AGENTS.md Q39 entry, for independent comparison`