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 an Ontario civil case, what should a statement of claim or defence include: material facts or evidence details?
Answer: A pleading in Ontario civil court should include a concise statement of the material facts you rely on, but not the evidence or proof details you will use to prove those facts at trial. The rule is set out in Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, section 25.06(1), and Ontario decisions explain that the prohibition is meant to stop you from pleading subordinate facts that merely tend toward proving the truth of the material facts. If you are drafting or revising a claim or defence and you want to keep it compliant while staying clear and actionable, PKM Legal Services paralegal services can help you structure your pleading around material facts, and you can call (519) 410-5250 to get started.
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. Simply said, the pleading document should state the facts as if the fact is true without stating how the fact will be proven true.
Note: Please contact PKM Legal Services by phone at: (519) 410-5250 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
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. 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 significant number of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a desire for prompt and competent legal assistance, rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, the Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, who are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation contexts. Key components of this position include advocacy, legal scrutiny, and procedural expertise. PKM Legal Services offers legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at attaining effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
