In 2019, Ontario’s Construction Act (the “Act”) introduced adjudication as a means to address a core risk in the construction industry: stalled cash flow and resources caused by disputes. Designed as a swift and flexible mechanism of dispute resolution, adjudication aims to provide parties with a quick, interim determination intended to break gridlock and keep money moving throughout the course of a project.
As of January 1, 2026, amendments to the Act introduced by Bill 216 have come into force, significantly altering Ontario’s adjudication regime. Key changes include an expanded scope of adjudication disputes, the introduction of private adjudicators, extended timelines for commencing adjudication, and clarified rules governing jurisdictional objections.
Key Amendments Now in Force
Expanded Scope of Adjudication Disputes
The scope of adjudication has been expanded to expressly include a broader range of payment-related disputes, including disputes relating to the scope of work, changes to contract price, and extensions of time for completion. While adjudicators could previously address some of these disputes by fitting them within the Act’s listed categories, the amendments now expressly include determinations on those matters.
Private Adjudicators
Parties may now agree to appoint a private adjudicator, rather than proceeding through the Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contracts (ODACC), provided the adjudicator is qualified by ODACC. This change provides greater flexibility in selecting who will resolve an adjudication, allowing stakeholders to appoint an adjudicator with subject-matter expertise or availability suited to the dispute.
Extended Time to Commence Adjudication
Previously, adjudication was generally only available while a contract or subcontract was ongoing, unless the parties agreed otherwise. As a result, parties were unable to rely on adjudication after a contract was completed, abandoned or terminated. Under the amendments, adjudication may now be commenced up to 90 days after a contract is completed, abandoned, or terminated.
For subcontracts, the 90-day period begins on the earliest of contract completion, subcontract certification, or the subcontractor’s last supply of services or materials.
Jurisdictional Objections
The amendments also introduce limitations on when a party may object to an adjudicator’s jurisdiction. Any jurisdictional objection must now be raised in a party’s first submission. Where a party alleges that an adjudicator has exceeded their jurisdiction, the objection must be raised as soon as the matter arises during the adjudication.
These amendments apply to contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, as well as contracts resulting from procurement processes initiated before October 1, 2019.
Challenging an Adjudicator’s Determination: What Has Not Changed
While the 2026 amendments expand access to adjudication, they do not alter the interim, binding nature of an adjudicator’s determination or the limited avenues for review. An adjudicator must still issue a determination within 30 days of receiving the claimant’s initial documents, subject to any agreed extension. The determination remains binding on an interim basis and must be complied with unless and until the dispute is finally resolved through litigation, arbitration, or agreement.
The Act does not provide a right of appeal. Judicial review remains available only on narrow procedural grounds, including jurisdictional errors, procedural unfairness, bias, fraud, or the absence of a valid contract. Judicial review is not a mechanism to revisit the merits of an adjudicator’s decision, and seeking review does not stay the obligation to pay the amount awarded.
Parties seeking to challenge the substance of an adjudicator’s determination, rather than the procedure followed, should therefore consider litigation or arbitration rather than judicial review.
The Bottom Line
Adjudication is not intended to produce perfect outcomes. Ontario courts have consistently emphasized that the regime prioritizes speed and cash flow over procedural precision. As a result, adjudicators may reach determinations that are incorrect in fact or law, yet those determinations remain binding on an interim basis.
Where a dispute later proceeds to litigation or arbitration, it may be re-litigated on its merits, and the adjudicator’s determination will not bind the final decision-maker.
Understanding how and when to use adjudication is critical. Used strategically, it can help owners, contractors, and subcontractors resolve disputes efficiently and mitigate the risks associated with stalled cash flow.
HOW WE CAN HELP
With extensive experience in construction law, RAR Litigation assists owners, construction managers, and contractors in navigating the evolving adjudication framework. Our team draws on a deep understanding of the Construction Act and the adjudication regime to develop strategies that safeguard clients’ interests and advance their objectives in the event of a dispute.
Contact us for strategic advice, risk assessment, and litigation representation.
