Last Updated: August 22 2026
How does an adverse inference work in Ontario civil cases if I do not produce expected documents or testimony?
An adverse inference (negative inference) in Ontario civil litigation is a discretionary evidentiary inference a judge may draw when a party fails to produce relevant evidence or testimony that was reasonably expected, especially where the evidence was under that party’s control; the court may presume the missing evidence would have been unfavourable or would not support the party’s case, and the judge considers the circumstances including any legitimate explanation, whether the witness or documents were within exclusive control, whether they were equally available, and whether they were key to the issues. Askew Paralegal Services paralegal services can help you understand how this may affect your motion, trial evidence strategy, or credibility arguments in Ontario, so you can respond effectively—call (289) 439-4740 for a free half-hour consultation.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Understanding the Principle of Adverse Inference as an Evidentiary Rule Arising from Failure to Produce Evidence
An adverse inference, which may sometimes also be called a negative inference, may occur a litigant fails to provide evidence or fails to provide testimony that was reasonably expected to come from the litigant. Where the litigant fails to provide the expected evidence or the expected testimony, the court may presume that the litigant avoided the evidence or testimony because such was unfavourable.
Note: Please contact Askew Paralegal Services by phone at: (289) 439-4740 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
An adverse inference presumption arises from the expectation that where a litigant is in possession of evidence or control of a witness, the litigant would provide the evidence or present the witness unless the evidence or witness is harmful to the case of the litigant. The legal doctrine was provided within the cases of, among others, Tiwari v. Chevalier, 2022 ONSC 3071, and Lane v. Kock, 2015 ONSC 1972, which respectively stated:
[28] Adverse inferences may be drawn from a party’s failure to produce relevant documents they were required to produce or should have produced. (Sarzynick v. Skwarchuk, 2021 BCSC 443, at para. 190.)
[3] The effect of the failure of a party to testify or to call a material witness or other evidence, is summarized as follows in Sydney N. Lederman, Alan W. Bryant & Michelle K. Fuerst, The Law of Evidence in Canada, 4th ed. (Markham: LexisNexis Canada, 2014) at p. 386:
In civil cases, an unfavourable inference can be drawn when, in the absence of an explanation, a party litigant does not testify, or fails to provide affidavit evidence on an application, or fails to call a witness who would have knowledge of the facts and would be assumed to be willing to assist that party. In the same vein, an adverse inference may be drawn against a party who does not call a material witness over whom he or she has exclusive control and does not explain it away. Such failure amounts to an implied admission that the evidence of the absent witness would be contrary to the party's case, or at least would not support it.
The choice to apply an adverse inference is discretion as was explained within the Court of Appeal case of Parris v. Laidley, 2012 ONCA 755, wherein it was said:
[2] Drawing adverse inferences from failure to produce evidence is discretionary. The inference should not be drawn unless it is warranted in all the circumstances. What is required is a case-specific inquiry into the circumstances including, but not only, whether there was a legitimate explanation for failing to call the witness, whether the witness was within the exclusive control of the party against whom the adverse inference is sought to be drawn, or equally available to both parties, and whether the witness has key evidence to provide or is the best person to provide the evidence in issue.
Summary Comment
The principle of adverse inference is the legal version of saying, if you got it, then flaunt it; and, if a party fails to do so, the court may presume that a party who fails to use evidence does so because the evidence would be unfavourable.
NOTE: A significant amount of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a desire for prompt, competent legal assistance instead of a precise job designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are empowered to advocate for clients in specified litigation issues. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural knowledge are fundamental to this position. Askew Paralegal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic alignment, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy geared towards attaining swift and beneficial resolutions for clients.
