Yes No Share to Facebook
Improper Pleading of Evidence Details:
Statements Containing References to How a Fact Will Be Proven
Last Updated: August 28 2026
Question: How do Ontario plaintiffs and defendants avoid pleading evidence and only plead material facts under the Rules of Civil Procedure?
Answer: In Ontario civil lawsuits, your pleading must set out a concise statement of the material facts you rely on, without including the evidence or proof you plan to use at trial, as required by Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, which at section 25.06(1) says pleadings contain material facts but not the evidence to prove them. Courts treat “material facts” as the facts that establish the constituent elements of your claim or defence and are capable of affecting the outcome, while “evidence” is subordinate detail that just tends to show the truth of those material facts, so plead only the events, agreements, dates, and other outcome-relevant facts, then leave proof methods, documents, witness statements, and similar trial details for disclosure and trial. If you are unsure whether a paragraph is improperly phrased as evidence (or too vague to be material), Mole Legal Services can help coordinate paralegal and property management next steps across Ontario to reduce delays and improve filing readiness, call (647) 709-5157.
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 Mole Legal Services by phone at: (647) 709-5157 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.
Interestingly, confusion can sometimes arise as to what is a statement containing a material fact and what is a statement containing evidence. 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 lawsuit documents, the pleading of material facts is proper; however, the pleading of evidence is improper. The pleading of evidence involves details about how a material fact will be proven.
NOTE: A considerable amount of online searches involving “lawyers in my area” or “top lawyer in” frequently indicate a requirement for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, certified paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation scenarios. Advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that function. Mole Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed boundaries, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and effective advocacy aimed at securing swift and beneficial outcomes for clients.
