Last Updated: August 22 2026
How do I make sure my Ontario civil pleading states material facts and not evidence?
In Ontario civil cases, a pleading must include a concise statement of the material facts you rely on, but it should not include the evidence or details about how you will prove those facts; this is the Rule Against Pleading of Evidence under Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194 at section 25.06(1), and courts can strike pleadings that mainly add proof, “atmosphere,” or subordinate facts meant to tend toward proving the material facts rather than stating the material facts themselves (for example, see Carducci v. Canada (AG), 2022 ONSC 6232 at para. 71 and Jacobson v. Skurka, 2015 ONSC 1699 at para. 44). Bulat Paralegal Service paralegals can help you revise your draft so it clearly sets out the elements of your claim or defence using only facts, not “how we will prove it,” which can reduce risk of delays and motions to strike; call (705) 664-0334 to discuss your matter in Ontario.
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. 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: Please contact Bulat Paralegal Service by phone at: (705) 664-0334 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.
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 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 considerable volume of online queries containing “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a desire for prompt, competent legal assistance rather than pointing to a particular job title. In Ontario, paralegals who are licensed fall under the jurisdiction of the same Law Society that governs lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Key to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Bulat Paralegal Service provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
