Last Updated: August 22 2026
Can a deponent sign an affidavit in Ontario just because a lawyer or paralegal tells them to?
In Ontario, a person swearing or affirming an affidavit (the deponent) must personally review it and swear to its truth based on actual knowledge or a genuine basis for belief; signing “just because” a lawyer or paralegal says to do so is not enough, and if the deponent cannot understand the contents, the affidavit may need translation and the jurat must reflect that requirement. The Court of Appeal in Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited v. Sun, 2021 ONCA 870, confirms that the deponent has an obligation to understand and confirm the facts being sworn, and courts can also strike affidavit evidence that does not comply with the rules on personal knowledge and permitted hearsay (see Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 4.06(2)). If you are being asked to sign without reviewing, understanding, or having a real basis for belief, a paralegal at Bulat Paralegal Service can help you assess what you must say, reduce perjury and admissibility risk, and prepare a compliant affidavit process for your situation; call (705) 664-0334.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Is a Person Who Is Swearing An Oath to Tell the Truth Within An Affidavit Allowed to Sign the Affidavit Just Because a Lawyer Says to Do So?
Swearing or Affirming Information in Affidavits Is a Serious Matter. A Person Who Swears That Facts Are True Despite Lacking Knowledge That the Facts Are True May Be Criminally Charged.
Note: For immediate help, please contact Bulat Paralegal Service by phone at: (705) 664-0334 to retain services or to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
An Affidavit document is a very serious legal document containing statements that must be stated truthfully based upon the knowledge or beliefs of the person who is swearing or affirming that the information within the Affidavit is indeed true. Accordingly, swearing or affirming that the statements within an Affidavit are true, while being without actual knowledge or belief, is improper and perhaps criminal.
The Law
In the recent court case of Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited v. Sun, 2021 ONCA 870, the Court of Appeal addressed the serious concern regarding an Affidavit that was prepared by a legal representative and then provided to a person to make Oath and swear or affirm that the Affidavit contents were true despite the person being unable to read the Affidavit and therefore being unaware of what information was stated as truthful. Upon reviewing the suggestion that it is notoriously understood and common that a legal representative, such as a lawyer or paralegal, will draft an Affidavit containing statements that a person should state and then the lawyer or paralegal will provide the Affidavit to a person to swear or affirm under Oath that the statements are true, the Court of Appeal said:
[9] I pause, at this point, to reflect on a rather disturbing issue regarding the moving party’s affidavit filed on this motion. Her counsel advises that the moving party does not read English. When I inquired how she could have then sworn her affidavit in these proceedings, I was met with the remarkable response that “everyone” knows that affidavits are prepared by lawyers and clients simply sign what the lawyers tell them to sign.
[10] It should go without saying that that is not the way that any affidavit is properly prepared. The deponent of an affidavit is required to review its contents and swear or affirm to its truth. It is the obligation of the person commissioning the affidavit to ensure, among other things, that he or she administers the oath or declaration in the manner required by law before signing the jurat or declaration: Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.17, s. 9(3). If the deponent does not understand English, then the affidavit must be translated for the deponent and the jurat on the affidavit must be changed to reflect that fact.
As per the Court of Appeal, and contrary to what was purported as common knowledge, an Affidavit must be prepared with the input of the person who will swear or affirm that the Affidavit is true. It is highly inappropriate for a lawyer or paralegal to put words into the mouth, or onto an Affidavit, of a person who will be taking an Oath and confirming that the words are true unless the person actually knows, or verily believes, that the words are indeed true.
“... I was met with the remarkable response that “everyone” knows that affidavits are prepared by lawyers and clients simply sign what the lawyers tell them to sign”
~ Nordheimer J.A.
Teefy Developments v. Sun, 2021 ONCA 870
After the stern admonishment expressed by the Court of Appeal within the Teefy Developments case as referenced above, among other issues, the issue of improper hearsay within Affidavit documents remains whereas improper Affidavit document concerns were again an issue within China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v. Novalex Inc., 2023 ONSC 3424, and Haventree Bank v. Lording, 2023 ONSC 1077, whereas within each case it was respectively said:
[13] Rule 4.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 requires that, except as otherwise provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure, an affidavit be confined to statements of fact within the personal knowledge of the affiant or to other evidence that the affiant could give if testifying as a witness in court.
[14] Rule 39.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows for affidavits for use on applications to contain statements of the affiant’s information and belief respecting non-contentious facts, provided that both the source of that information and the fact of the affiant’s belief in the veracity of that information is specified in the affidavit.
[15] The permissiveness of rule 39.01(5) “does not offer parties and counsel a license for sloppiness, laxity or the admission of double or triple hearsay” (see: Haventree Bank v. Lording, 2023 ONSC 1077, at para. 6).
[16] The failure to comply with the basic requirements of specifying the source of the affiant’s information and stating the affiant’s belief in the veracity of that information requires that the offending evidence be struck (see: Flight (Re), 2022 ONCA 77, at para. 13).
[4] Many litigants and counsel believe that evidentiary rules in written motions are so lax that virtually anything goes. That is not the case. The presumptive rule regarding affidavits, limiting evidence to facts that an affiant could testify to at trial, is set in Rule 4.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, which states:
(2) An affidavit shall be confined to the statement of facts within the personal knowledge of the deponent or to other evidence that the deponent could give if testifying as a witness in court, except where these rules provide otherwise.
[5] Rule 39.01(4) sets out a limited exception to that rule for affidavits in a motion. It allows hearsay in such affidavits if certain conditions are met. It states:
(4) An affidavit for use on a motion may contain statements of the deponent’s information and belief, if the source of the information and the fact of the belief are specified in the affidavit.
[6] The permissiveness of this subrule does not offer parties and counsel alicence for sloppiness, laxity or the admission of double or triple hearsay, as the Bank attempts to do here.
[7] In Gutierrez v. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, 2019 ONSC 3069, Perell J. wrote at para. 27:
… the Rules of Civil Procedure permit hearsay evidence for motions. An affidavit for use on a motion may contain statements of the deponent's information and belief, if the source of the information and the fact of the belief are specified in the affidavit. A statement in an affidavit that: (a) does not state the source of the affiant's information; or (b) contains inadmissible hearsay, legal and factual argument belonging in the factum, inflammatory rhetoric, or offensive allegations made for the purposes of prejudicing another party may be struck out in whole or in part.
If a person is providing live voice testimony as a witness, or provides witness testimony via statements sworn or affirmed as truthful within an Affidavit document, despite that the person is without actual knowledge or belief of the expressed facts and is instead merely stating what the person was told to say or state, such a person may be committing a criminal act per the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, whereas it is stated:
Perjury
131 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.
Fabricating evidence
137 Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Summary Comment
A person who swears or affirms that the contents of an Affidavit are true, meaning that the information stated within the Affidavit is true, must actually know or believe that the information is true. When a person takes Oath and swears or affirms that an Affidavit is true, the person doing so must do so genuinely rather than doing so just because a lawyer or paralegal, or someone else, told the person to do so.
NOTE: A significant amount of inquiries that include “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a pressing need for adept legal assistance rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are empowered to assist clients in specific litigation issues. Advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise are crucial to that function. Bulat Paralegal Service provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic placement, evidentiary development, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
