Yes No Share to Facebook
Improper Pleading of Evidence Details:
Statements Containing References to How a Fact Will Be Proven
Last Updated: August 23 2026
Question: In Ontario civil litigation, what should I include in my claim or defence under the rule against pleading evidence?
Answer: In Ontario civil litigation, Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure require that a pleading include a concise statement of material facts, but not the evidence that will prove those facts, so you should draft the “what” (the facts that establish the elements of your claim or defence) without describing the “how” (witnesses, documents, or proof details). The rule is found in Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, at section 25.06(1). Courts have explained that the evidence rule restrains pleadings that are subordinate or merely tend toward proving the truth of the material facts, and pleadings of evidence can be struck out (see Carducci v. Canada (AG), 2022 ONSC 6232, at para. 71). If you want help tightening your draft so it stays on material facts, not proof, contact Woodcock Legal Services at (613) 334-6721 for professional legal services in Ontario.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Understanding the Rule Against Pleading of Evidence
A pleading document, whether such is the claim document or a defence document, is to contain allegations of fact without containing details of the evidence that will be used to prove the allegations of fact. Put simply, a pleading should state only facts in the context of the fact being true, without including details about how the fact will be proven true.
The Law
The Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, mandate that pleading documents contain factual statements only without containing details about how the factual statements will be proven wherein it is specifically stated:
Material Facts
25.06 (1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.
Interestingly, confusion can sometimes arise as to what is a statement containing a material fact and what is a statement containing evidence. Clarification of the difference can be found within various case law decisions including:
[71] Rule 25.06(1) distinguishes between the “material facts” and “the evidence by which those facts are to be proved”. The prohibition against pleading evidence is designed to restrain the pleading of facts that are “subordinate” and that “merely tend towards proving the truth of the material facts.” See Jacobson v Skurka, 2015 ONSC 1699 at para 43.
[30] Material facts include facts that the party pleading is entitled to prove at trial, and at trial, anything that affects the determination of the party’s rights can be proved; accordingly, material facts includes facts that can have an effect on the determination of a party’s rights.[6] A fact that is not provable at the trial or that is incapable of affecting the outcome is immaterial and ought not to be pleaded.[7] A pleading of fact will be struck if it cannot be the basis of a claim or defence and is designed solely for the purposes of atmosphere or to cast the opposing party in a bad light.[8] As described by Riddell J. in Duryea v. Kaufman,[9] such a plea is said to be “embarrassing”.
[31] “Material” facts include facts that establish the constituent elements of the claim or defence.[10] The causes of action must be clearly identifiable from the facts pleaded and must be supported by facts that are material.[11]
[32] A pleading shall contain material facts, but it should not contain the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.[12] Pleadings of evidence may be struck out.[13] The prohibition against pleading evidence is designed to restrain the pleading of facts that are subordinate and that merely tend toward proving the truth of the material facts.[14]
[44] A pleading should not describe the evidence that will prove a material fact; pleadings of evidence may be struck out: Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. 401700 Ontario Ltd. (1991), 1991 CanLII 7050 (ON SC), 3 O.R. (3d) 684, [1991] O.J. No. 915 (Gen. Div.). The difference between pleading material facts and pleading evidence is a difference in degree and not of kind: Toronto (City) v. MFP Financial Services Ltd., [2005] O.J. No. 3214, [2005] O.T.C. 672 (Master), at para. 15. What the prohibition against pleading evidence is designed to do is to restrain the pleading of facts that are subordinate and that merely tend toward proving the truth of the material facts: Grace v. Usalkas, [1959] O.W.N. 237 (H.C.J.); Phillips v. Phillips (1878), 4 Q.B.D. 127 (C.A.). Even a pleading of an admission, which is a type of evidence, may be struck out: Davy v. Garrett (1878), 7 Ch. D. 473 (C.A.); Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. 401700 Ontario Ltd., supra.
Conclusion
Within a lawsuit document, the pleading of a material facts is required; however, the pleading of evidence is forbidden. The pleading of evidence involves statements that contain details as to how a material fact will be proven true.
NOTE: A considerable amount of online searches, such as “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in,” typically indicate a desire for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than a precise job title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are regulated by the same Law Society that governs lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specified litigation issues. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedure are vital to this role. Woodcock Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and effective advocacy aimed at securing timely and beneficial outcomes for clients.
