Yes No Share to Facebook
Improper Pleading of Evidence Details: Statements Containing References to How a Fact Will Be Proven
Question: What are the key rules regarding the pleading of evidence in a lawsuit?
Answer: The Rules of Civil Procedure state that pleadings must contain concise statements of material facts, without including evidence that supports those facts. This distinction is crucial for ensuring that a pleading remains focused on the fundamental facts of a claim or defence, thereby enhancing clarity and effectiveness in legal proceedings. Crystal Clear Legal Services can help you navigate these complexities to protect your legal rights.
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. 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 significant quantity of queries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a desire for prompt and proficient legal assistance instead of a particular job title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specific litigation issues. The core of this role centres on advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Crystal Clear Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic planning, evidentiary organisation, and persuasive representation aimed at securing effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.