Last Updated: August 23 2026
How do I determine if a document or witness testimony is relevant and must be disclosed in a civil lawsuit in Ontario?
In Ontario civil litigation, relevance is determined by whether the evidence has some logical connection to a material fact in issue, meaning it can reasonably make a disputed proposition more or less likely than it would be without the evidence, and that typically drives both admissibility and discovery disclosure duties; for example, under the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 at s. 30.02(1), every document relevant to a matter in issue that was in a party’s possession or control must be disclosed (even if privilege is claimed), and the Small Claims Court has different practical disclosure and evidence rules under Rules of the Small Claims Court, O. Reg. 258/98 at s. 18.02 and Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 at s. 27 (hearsay may be admissible in that forum if relevant and not barred by privilege or an Act), with guidance that even part of a document can make it producible on discovery; if you want help assessing what to disclose and what to argue as admissible, Paralegal services at Civil Litigations Paralegal Services can help you prepare a clear relevance and disclosure plan for your case in Ontario, call (416) 229-1479 to discuss your situation.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Determining What Evidence Is Relevant
Determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, either in the form of testimony or documents, in civil litigation requires an analysis of whether the evidence has a logical connection to the facts and issues in dispute. Determining the relevance of evidence is also necessary to determining whether a document is discoverable and must be disclosed in the course of the litigation.
Note: Please contact Civil Litigations Paralegal Services by phone at: (416) 229-1479 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
The Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, and the Rules of the Small Claims Court, O. Reg. 258/98, as well as common law including the Algarawi v. Berger; and Porter v. Sutandar, 2023 ONSC 2339, decision assist with the determination of whether evidence is relevant to litigation. Specifically, these laws state:
Written Statements, Documents and Records
18.02 (1) A document or written statement or an audio or visual record that has been served, at least 30 days before the trial date, on all parties who were served with the notice of trial, shall be received in evidence, unless the trial judge orders otherwise.
(2) Subrule (1) applies to the following written statements and documents:
1. The signed written statement of any witness, including the written report of an expert, to the extent that the statement relates to facts and opinions to which the witness would be permitted to testify in person.
2. Any other document, including but not limited to a hospital record or medical report made in the course of care and treatment, a financial record, a receipt, a bill, documentary evidence of loss of income or property damage, and a repair estimate.
[18] To be received at trial, evidence must be admissible, and the trial judge must not have exercised her discretion to exclude the evidence. To be admissible, evidence must be relevant and not subject to exclusion under any other rules of law or policy (for example, because of privilege).
[19] For evidence to be relevant, it must have some tendency as a matter of logic and human experience to make the proposition for which it is advanced more likely or less likely than the proposition would be in the absence of the evidence.[10] This is not a high bar.
[20] Determining relevance is an exercise in the application of experience and common sense.[11] Justice Doherty put it this way:
Relevance as explained in these authorities requires a determination of whether as a matter of human experience and logic the existence of "Fact A" makes the existence or non-existence of "Fact B" more probable than it would be without the existence of "Fact A". If it does then "Fact A" is relevant to "Fact B". As long as "Fact B" is itself a material fact in issue or is relevant to a material fact in issue in the litigation then "Fact A" is relevant and prima facie admissible.[12]
[21] Relevance on discovery is determined by the pleadings. If even one part of a document is relevant, it must be produced.[13] Every document relevant to any matter in issue in an action that is or has been in the possession, power, or control of a party to the action shall be disclosed.[14] A document may be produced for discovery because it is relevant notwithstanding that it may not be admissible at trial.[15] A person examined for discovery shall answer any proper question relevant to any matter in issue in the proceeding.[16]
Court Cases
Unlike litigation matters within the higher court, in the Small Claims Court hearsay evidence may be admitted whereas such is permissible per section 27 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which says:
Evidence
27 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the Small Claims Court may admit as evidence at a hearing and act upon any oral testimony and any document or other thing so long as the evidence is relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding, but the court may exclude anything unduly repetitious.
Same
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the evidence is given or proven under oath or affirmation or admissible as evidence in any other court.
Same
(3) Nothing is admissible in evidence at a hearing,
(a) that would be inadmissible by reason of any privilege under the law of evidence; or
(b) that is inadmissible by any Act.
Conflicts
(4) Nothing in subsection (1) overrides the provisions of any Act expressly limiting the extent to or purposes for which any oral testimony, documents or things may be admitted or used in evidence in any proceeding.
Copies
(5) A copy of a document or any other thing may be admitted as evidence at a hearing if the presiding judge is satisfied as to its authenticity.
Furthermore, and also unlike the evidence rules within the higher court, the Rules of the Small Claims Court are without a requirement to disclose all relevant evidence and instead require only the disclosure of evidence that may be relied upon at Trial. Specifically, the Rules of the Small Claims Court state:
Disclosure
13.03 (2) At least 14 days before the date of the settlement conference, each party shall serve on every other party and file with the court,
(a) a copy of any document to be relied on at the trial, including an expert report, not attached to the party’s claim or defence ...
Additionally, the Rules of the Small Claims Court are without a rule about whether an Order for production or inspection of potentially relevant evidence may be sought; and accordingly, for the answer to this question, careful review of the express Small Claims Court disclosure rules and previous case decisions becomes necessary.
Conclusion
The admissibility of evidence in court is contingent upon the relevancy of the evidence. If the evidence has a reasonable chance of proving or disproving a fact in dispute, then it may be admitted. Otherwise, it will considered irrelevant and invalid to the court proceedings.
NOTE: A significant number of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate an urgent requirement for effective legal representation rather than a certain professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers, granting them the authority to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Central to that role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Civil Litigations Paralegal Services offers legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to attain efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
