Last Updated: August 22 2026
Can a statement in my Ontario court pleading be struck if it mainly describes evidence instead of material facts?
In Ontario civil proceedings, your pleading must set out only a concise statement of material facts and not “the evidence by which those facts are to be proved” under Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, Rule 25.06(1). A court will generally treat evidence-leaning details (how you will prove something) as improper and may strike the offending portions, because the rule is designed to restrain pleadings of subordinate facts that merely tend to prove the truth of the material facts. Cases like Carducci v. Canada (AG), 2022 ONSC 6232 and Jacobson v. Skurka, 2015 ONSC 1699 explain the material-facts versus evidence distinction, with pleadings of evidence sometimes being struck as embarrassing or not properly constituting a claim or defence. If you are revising a claim or defence in Ontario, Askew Paralegal Services can help you reframe the allegations into material facts that fit Rule 25.06(1) and strengthen how your case is pleaded, call (289) 439-4740 for a consultation.
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. Simply said, the pleading document should state the facts as if the fact is true without stating how the fact will be proven true.
Note: Please contact Askew Paralegal Services by phone at: (289) 439-4740 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 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 featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a desire for prompt and proficient legal counsel instead of a specific designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that function. Askew Paralegal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at attaining effective and beneficial outcomes for clients.
