Yes No Share to Facebook
Evidentiary Relevance:
Contribution to Proving Whether a Disputed Fact Is True or False
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: What makes a document relevant and discoverable in an Ontario civil lawsuit?
Answer: In Ontario civil litigation, a document is generally relevant (and therefore typically discoverable) when it has some logical connection to a material fact in issue, meaning it tends to make a disputed fact more or less likely than it would be without the document; this is usually assessed using common sense applied to the pleadings, and in the higher court context relevant documents in a party’s possession or control must be disclosed even if they may not ultimately be admissible at trial, per Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 at s. 30.02(1) and the approach to relevance in Algarawi v. Berger; and Porter v. Sutandar, 2023 ONSC 2339. In the Small Claims Court, relevance still matters for admissibility, but disclosure is more trial-focused and hearsay can be handled differently under the Courts of Justice Act, so the strategy can change. If you need help determining what to produce or rely on, Olson Craig Legal lawyer & paralegals can help you optimize your evidence plan for Ontario matters, call (226) 886-2001.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Determining What Evidence Is Relevant
The determination of whether evidence as testimony or evidence as a document is relevant and therefore admissible within civil litigation proceedings involves the analysis of whether the evidence has a logical connection to the facts and issues in dispute. Whether evidence is relevant may also go to the issue of whether the document is discoverable and must be disclosed to an opposing party.
The Law
The Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, as well as the Rules of the Small Claims Court, O. Reg. 258/98, and the common law including the decision in Algarawi v. Berger; and Porter v. Sutandar, 2023 ONSC 2339, all provide instructive guidance to help when determining whether evidence is relevant. These laws specifically state:
Written Statements, Documents and Records
18.02 (1) A document or written statement or an audio or visual record that has been served, at least 30 days before the trial date, on all parties who were served with the notice of trial, shall be received in evidence, unless the trial judge orders otherwise.
(2) Subrule (1) applies to the following written statements and documents:
1. The signed written statement of any witness, including the written report of an expert, to the extent that the statement relates to facts and opinions to which the witness would be permitted to testify in person.
2. Any other document, including but not limited to a hospital record or medical report made in the course of care and treatment, a financial record, a receipt, a bill, documentary evidence of loss of income or property damage, and a repair estimate.
[18] To be received at trial, evidence must be admissible, and the trial judge must not have exercised her discretion to exclude the evidence. To be admissible, evidence must be relevant and not subject to exclusion under any other rules of law or policy (for example, because of privilege).
[19] For evidence to be relevant, it must have some tendency as a matter of logic and human experience to make the proposition for which it is advanced more likely or less likely than the proposition would be in the absence of the evidence.[10] This is not a high bar.
[20] Determining relevance is an exercise in the application of experience and common sense.[11] Justice Doherty put it this way:
Relevance as explained in these authorities requires a determination of whether as a matter of human experience and logic the existence of "Fact A" makes the existence or non-existence of "Fact B" more probable than it would be without the existence of "Fact A". If it does then "Fact A" is relevant to "Fact B". As long as "Fact B" is itself a material fact in issue or is relevant to a material fact in issue in the litigation then "Fact A" is relevant and prima facie admissible.[12]
[21] Relevance on discovery is determined by the pleadings. If even one part of a document is relevant, it must be produced.[13] Every document relevant to any matter in issue in an action that is or has been in the possession, power, or control of a party to the action shall be disclosed.[14] A document may be produced for discovery because it is relevant notwithstanding that it may not be admissible at trial.[15] A person examined for discovery shall answer any proper question relevant to any matter in issue in the proceeding.[16]
Court Cases
Interestingly, and unlike cases in the higher court, for matters in the Small Claims Court hearsay evidence is permissible per section 27 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which states:
Evidence
27 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the Small Claims Court may admit as evidence at a hearing and act upon any oral testimony and any document or other thing so long as the evidence is relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding, but the court may exclude anything unduly repetitious.
Same
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the evidence is given or proven under oath or affirmation or admissible as evidence in any other court.
Same
(3) Nothing is admissible in evidence at a hearing,
(a) that would be inadmissible by reason of any privilege under the law of evidence; or
(b) that is inadmissible by any Act.
Conflicts
(4) Nothing in subsection (1) overrides the provisions of any Act expressly limiting the extent to or purposes for which any oral testimony, documents or things may be admitted or used in evidence in any proceeding.
Copies
(5) A copy of a document or any other thing may be admitted as evidence at a hearing if the presiding judge is satisfied as to its authenticity.
Furthermore, and also differing from the rules applicable to cases proceeding within the higher court, the Rules of the Small Claims Court lack a mandate for the disclosure of all relevant evidence and instead only require the disclosing of evidence as may be used at Trial. Specifically, the Rules of the Small Claims Court state:
Disclosure
13.03 (2) At least 14 days before the date of the settlement conference, each party shall serve on every other party and file with the court,
(a) a copy of any document to be relied on at the trial, including an expert report, not attached to the party’s claim or defence ...
Additionally, the Rules of the Small Claims Court lack a rule addressing if, when, and how, an Order for production or inspection of evidence may be imposed; and accordingly, for guidance with these issues, reference to prior case decisions is required.
Conclusion
Relevancy of evidence is determined by whether the evidence has a rational potential to prove or disprove a disputed fact. If the evidence is deemed relevant, then the evidence may be admitted in court, depending upon other applicable rules of admissibility.
NOTE: A considerable amount of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” usually indicate a desire for prompt and effective legal support rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, the same Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, allowing them to advocate for clients in specific litigation scenarios. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural knowledge are foundational to this position. Olson Craig Legal provides legal representation within its authorized framework, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy to achieve swift and positive outcomes for clients.