Do appellants in Canadian appeal courts get the last word? Increasingly, the answer appears to be no.

Reply factums—short written submissions filed after responding factums—have always occupied an uneasy place in appellate procedure. They’re not a right. They’re discretionary. And recent signals from the Supreme Court of Canada suggest that discretion is being exercised more narrowly than some litigants might like.

The issue has been bubbling for a while, including within the Ontario Court of Appeal itself, which has been divided on whether reply factums are genuinely useful or mostly redundant. In 2022, Justice Brown empathically wrote the Rules should be amended to permit a brief reply factum, without requiring the time and expense of a motion seeking leave. Quoting Justice Doherty, he believed that parties and counsel were entitled to a “hot court”, meaning a court that has fully read the material, fully read the materials, fully understood the arguments and is ready to get into the meat of them. Others see them as an unnecessary extra layer of paper that risks turning appeals into an endless back-and-forth.

Last month, the Supreme Court weighed in—quietly but firmly—by shutting the door on Facebook’s attempt to file a reply factum. (Facebook Inc. v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Docket 41538).

Justice Côté denied the motion, relying on Justice LeBel’s well-known statement in Osoyoos Indian Band v. Town of Oliver. The reasoning was blunt:

“The motion is dismissed without costs, on the basis of Justice LeBel’s decision in Osoyoos Indian Band v. The Town of Oliver, in which he stated: As a general rule, such reply factums are not allowed except in special circumstances. The motion does not establish them. The concerns raised about the interpretation given to parts of their appeal factum by other parties can be addressed during the hearing of the appeal.”

That last sentence does a lot of work. The Court’s message is clear: if you think the other side misunderstood your arguments, that’s what oral argument is for. A reply factum is not meant to be a routine corrective—or a chance to sharpen points that were already made.

For appellate counsel, the takeaway is practical and strategic. Assume you won’t get a reply factum. Make your appeal factum as clear, disciplined, and anticipatory as possible. And be ready to do your clarifying—and persuading—on your feet.

The broader trend also reflects a familiar concern in appellate courts: efficiency. Appeals are meant to narrow issues, not multiply them. Limiting reply factums keeps the written record tighter and pushes the real debate back where judges often prefer it—into the hearing room.

For now, at least, the Supreme Court seems content to remind litigants that in Canadian appeals, the last word is usually spoken, not written.