Yes No Share to Facebook
Adverse Inference:
Negative Presumptions for Failing to Present Evidence
Last Updated: August 23 2026
Question: How does an adverse inference work in an Ontario civil case if a party fails to produce documents or call a witness?
Answer: Civil Litigations Paralegal Services can help Ontario parties understand when a court may draw an adverse (negative) inference from a litigant’s failure to produce relevant evidence, documents they were required to provide, or a material witness they reasonably should have called. In cases like Tiwari v. Chevalier, 2022 ONSC 3071, and Parris v. Laidley, 2012 ONCA 755, the inference is discretionary and case-specific, so courts consider factors like whether the evidence or witness was within the party’s exclusive control, whether there is a legitimate explanation, and whether the witness was key or equally available to both sides. If you are dealing with missing records, unanswered disclosure, or a witness not being called, call (416) 229-1479 to discuss how to frame the surrounding facts and respond effectively.
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.
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 considerable assortment of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate an urgent requirement for competent legal assistance rather than a specific designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and possess the authority to represent clients in specific litigation contexts. Advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this position. Civil Litigations Paralegal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, emphasising strategic positioning, evidentiary groundwork, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
