Yes No Share to Facebook
Improper Pleading of Evidence Details:
Statements Containing References to How a Fact Will Be Proven
Last Updated: August 24 2026
Question: In Ontario, what should I include in a Statement of Claim or Defence so it states material facts but not the evidence?
Answer: Olson Craig Legal can help Ontario claimants and defendants draft pleadings that include a concise statement of the material facts while avoiding evidence details (how you will prove each fact), per Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194 at section 25.06(1) and the distinction explained in cases like Carducci v. Canada (AG), 2022 ONSC 6232; in practice, list the constituent elements and facts that affect the determination of your rights at trial, but do not describe proof methods, documents, or testimony, since pleadings of evidence may be struck as improper or “embarrassing”; if you want a lawyer & paralegal review of your draft for rule compliance and delay avoidance, call (226) 886-2001 for a free 1/4 hour consultation.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Understanding the Rule Against Pleading of Evidence
A lawsuit document, which is known as a pleading regardless of whether such is a claim or a defence, is required to contain factual allegations without containing the details about the evidence that will be used to prove the factual allegations. Simply said, the pleading document should state the facts as if the fact is true without stating how the fact will be proven true.
The Law
The Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, prescribe the requirement that a pleading contain only facts without stating the details of how the facts will be proven whereas it is said:
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. This confusion is often addressed by case law such as per the following cases:
[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 significant number of inquiries related to “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically signify a pressing need for competent legal assistance instead of a specific job designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this position. Olson Craig Legal provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and effective advocacy aimed at securing prompt and advantageous outcomes for clients.