Yes No Share to Facebook
Improper Pleading of Evidence Details:
Statements Containing References to How a Fact Will Be Proven
Last Updated: August 08 2026
Question: What should I include in my Ontario civil court pleading to comply with the rule that I must plead material facts but not the evidence used to prove them?
Answer: In Ontario civil court, a pleading must set out a concise statement of the material facts the party relies on, without including the evidence, details, or “how you will prove it,” which is meant to be reserved for trial: see Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, at section 25.06(1) for the requirement. Material facts are the constituent elements of your claim or defence that, if proven, affect the determination of your rights, while pleading evidence (or evidence-like narrative) can be struck out because it tends to subordinate or bolster the material facts rather than state them plainly, as courts explain in cases like Carducci v. Canada (AG), 2022 ONSC 6232 and Jacobson v. Skurka, 2015 ONSC 1699. If you’re unsure whether your draft contains prohibited pleading of evidence, Bulat Paralegal Service can help you rewrite your allegations to focus on material facts only and reduce avoidable motions and delays, call (705) 664-0334 to get started.
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, 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.
Confusion over the difference between a statement of fact and a statement of evidence sometimes arises. 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 quantity of online searches featuring “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” frequently indicates a demand for prompt and proficient legal assistance rather than a particular title. In Ontario, paralegals who hold licences are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to advocate for clients in specific litigation issues. Advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that function. Bulat Paralegal Service provides legal advocacy within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling representation aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.