Last Updated: August 22 2026
What should I include in my Ontario civil claim or defence so I don’t plead evidence instead of material facts?
In Ontario civil pleadings, you should include only a concise statement of the material facts that support your claim or defence, not the evidence or details about how you will prove each fact, as required by Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194 at section 25.06(1) (Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, section 25.06(1). Courts describe this as a limit on pleading subordinate facts that merely tend to prove the truth of material facts, not proof steps, and pleadings of evidence may be struck out, including under Carducci v. Canada (AG) 2022 ONSC 6232 and Stedfasts v. Dynacare 2020 ONSC 8008. If you want help framing your allegations as material facts (and avoiding an evidence-heavy pleading), DK Legal Practice can assist paralegal guidance for Ontario matters, call (416) 906-6663 to discuss your next draft.
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: Please contact DK Legal Practice by phone at: (416) 906-6663 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. 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 inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicates a desire for prompt, competent legal assistance rather than a precise professional designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers, granting them the authority to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Skills in advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural execution are fundamental to that position. DK Legal Practice provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing effective and favourable outcomes for clients.
