Bifurcated Trials in Ontario: Splitting Liability From Damages

Most civil trials in Ontario answer two questions in one continuous proceeding: is the defendant responsible, and if so, how much do they owe? But in some cases, a court will split those questions apart — hearing and deciding liability first, and only moving to a separate damages phase if the plaintiff wins. This is called a bifurcated trial, and it can dramatically change how a lawsuit unfolds.

Bifurcation is not automatic and it is not common in every case. It is a case-management tool judges use when it genuinely makes sense to separate the "who’s responsible" question from the "how much" question. Understanding when and why courts do this helps you set realistic expectations if it comes up in your own case.

What a Bifurcated Trial Actually Means

In an ordinary trial, the same judge (or judge and jury) hears all the evidence — on both fault and damages — and issues one decision covering everything. In a bifurcated trial, the process is split:

• Phase one deals only with liability: did the defendant breach a duty, a contract, or otherwise cause the harm alleged?
• Phase two, which only happens if the plaintiff succeeds in phase one, deals with damages: how much is the plaintiff entitled to recover?

If the plaintiff loses the liability phase, the case ends there. The damages phase never happens, because there is nothing left to calculate.

Why a Court Would Split the Trial

Bifurcation is usually proposed — by one of the parties or raised by the court itself — because splitting the trial can save time and expense in the right circumstances. Common reasons include:

• Damages evidence is extensive and expensive. Medical experts, forensic accountants, and financial reconstructions can take days and cost a great deal to prepare. If liability is genuinely in doubt, none of that may end up being necessary.
• Liability is a distinct, self-contained question. Some disputes turn on a single clear issue — did a contract term apply, did an accident happen the way one side says — that can be resolved without touching the damages evidence at all.
• It may encourage settlement. Once liability is decided, parties often have a much clearer picture of their exposure and settle the damages question without a second trial.
• It can reduce overall court time, which benefits an already busy civil justice system, provided the split does not simply create two trials instead of one.

Factors a Judge Considers

Bifurcation is discretionary — a court will not order it just because one party asks. Judges generally look at:

• Whether liability and damages are truly separable, or whether the same witnesses and evidence would need to be called twice
• The likely cost savings against the risk of delay from running two proceedings instead of one
• Whether either side would be unfairly disadvantaged by having the case split
• The overall complexity and length of the case — bifurcation is more often considered in longer, more complex trials than in straightforward disputes

How the Process Works

1. A request is made. Either party can ask for bifurcation, usually well before trial, or the parties may agree to it between themselves.
2. The court decides whether to grant it, weighing the factors above.
3. The liability trial proceeds on its own, with evidence limited to what is relevant to fault or breach.
4. If the defendant is found not liable, the case is over — there is no damages phase.
5. If the defendant is found liable, a separate damages trial is scheduled, sometimes well after the liability decision, to determine what the plaintiff recovers.

Weighing the Trade-Offs

Is Bifurcation Common?

No — most Ontario civil trials proceed as a single, combined hearing. Bifurcation tends to come up in complex or high-value litigation where liability is a genuinely discrete issue and the damages evidence would otherwise be extensive and costly to prepare regardless of the outcome on fault. It is a tool for the right case, not a default approach.

Frequently asked questions