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 lawsuit pleading so I state material facts but don’t plead evidence?
Answer: ?
Answer: In Ontario civil litigation, a paralegal at Melville Legal can help you draft your claim or defence so it includes only the material facts you rely on and omits the evidence you plan to use to prove them, because the Rules of Civil Procedure require “a concise statement of the material facts… but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved” under Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194 at section 25.06(1) Courts treat “pleadings of evidence” as improper because they go beyond the facts needed to establish the elements of your position and instead describe proof details, as explained in Carducci v. Canada (AG), 2022 ONSC 6232 at paragraph 71 and Jacobson v. Skurka, 2015 ONSC 1699 at paragraph 44. To avoid delays, focus each paragraph on what you say is true (the events and facts), and leave out how you will prove it (documents, witness testimony, or timelines of proof) and then have Melville Legal review your draft before filing by calling (289) 981-7712 today.
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.
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 large volume of online queries such as “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a desire for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than a particular title of expertise. In Ontario, paralegals who hold a licence are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specific litigation issues. Skills in advocacy, legal interpretation, and procedural execution are fundamental to this position. Melville Legal offers legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure effective and positive outcomes for clients.