Last Updated: , 66 days ago.
In an Ontario civil case, what should a statement of claim or defence include: material facts or evidence details?
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 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. 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.
Note: For immediate help, please contact PKM Legal Services by phone at: (519) 410-5250 to retain services or to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
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.
Confusion over the difference between a statement of fact and a statement of evidence sometimes arises. 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 lawsuit documents, the pleading of material facts is proper; however, the pleading of evidence is improper. The pleading of evidence involves details about how a material fact will be proven.
NOTE: A considerable amount of online searches that include “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate an urgent requirement for competent legal assistance instead of a specific designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation scenarios. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedures are fundamental to this function. PKM Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
