Yes No Share to Facebook
Improper Pleading of Evidence Details:
Statements Containing References to How a Fact Will Be Proven
Last Updated: July 03 2026
Question: What does the Rule Against Pleading of Evidence require you to include (and not include) in an Ontario civil lawsuit pleading, and who can help me draft one correctly?
Answer: A Ontario paralegal at Askew Paralegal Services can help you understand that under Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, at section 25.06(1), your pleading must contain a concise statement of the material facts you rely on for your claim or defence, but it must not include the evidence or details of how those facts will be proved . In practice, you should write the facts as true (for example, who did what, when, and the key events that establish the elements of your case), while leaving out proof methods like documents, witness testimony, or the narrative of how you will prove each allegation . Courts have described the distinction as between “material facts” and “the evidence by which those facts are to be proved,” and pleadings that try to plead evidence can be struck out, so it is a good idea to get drafting support from Askew Paralegal Services before you file . To discuss your situation in Ontario, call (289) 439-4740 for a free half hour consultation and we will help you plan your pleading so it focuses on material facts, not proof details.
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.
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. 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: An extensive number of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently signify an urgency for effective legal support instead of a particular job title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specified litigation issues. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that function. Askew Paralegal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.