Last Updated: August 22 2026
Is it okay to swear that affidavit facts are true if you did not actually read the document or don’t personally know they are true in Ontario?
In Ontario, you should not swear or affirm affidavit facts are true unless you personally review the document and have actual knowledge or a genuine information-and-belief basis for what you state; if you sign because a lawyer or paralegal tells you to, without understanding or without the required personal knowledge or specified source for belief, it can lead to serious consequences such as motions to strike the affidavit and, in extreme cases, perjury or fabricating evidence under Criminal Code, (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46) and concerns like those discussed in Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited v. Sun, 2021 ONCA 870. If you are preparing to swear an affidavit, a paralegal at Denali Paralegal can help you understand what you must know, what you can truthfully swear on, and how to correct jurat or translation issues before signing; call (877) 414-4377 for family law services guidance in Ontario.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
When a Person Is Swearing An Oath to State the Truth Within An Affidavit, Must the Person Actually Have Knowledge About What Is Said Within the Affidavit?
Swearing or Affirming Information in Affidavits Is a Serious Matter. A Person Who Swears That Facts Are True Despite Lacking Knowledge That the Facts Are True May Be Criminally Charged.
Note: For immediate help, please contact Denali Paralegal by phone at: (877) 414-4377 to retain services or to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
Understanding That Swearing or Affirming an Affidavit Requires Actual Knowledge or Belief For What Is Stated
When a person swears or affirms that the facts as stated within an Affidavit are true, the person must do so with actual knowledge or belief that the stated facts are indeed true. Swearing or affirming that stated facts are true, without actual knowledge, or a genuine basis for belief, that the stated facts are indeed true is highly improper and may even constitute as a criminal offence.
The Law
As per the Court of Appeal within Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited v. Sun, 2021 ONCA 870, the very serious concern arose regarding an Affidavit that was prepared by a legal representative and thereafter provided to a person to make Oath and swear or affirm that the Affidavit contents were true despite that the person being asked to swear or affirm that the Affidavit contents were true was unable to read the Affidavit and was therefore unaware of what statements were being sworn or affirmed as true. Additionally, upon raising this concern, the Court of Appeal was met with the surprising response that it is well known that legal representatives, such as a lawyer or paralegal, will prepare Affidavit documents, and the statements within, and that the Affidavit will then be provided to a person, known as the Deponent, to sign while under an Oath to state the truth. In reviewing this suggestion, the Court of Appeal said:
[9] I pause, at this point, to reflect on a rather disturbing issue regarding the moving party’s affidavit filed on this motion. Her counsel advises that the moving party does not read English. When I inquired how she could have then sworn her affidavit in these proceedings, I was met with the remarkable response that “everyone” knows that affidavits are prepared by lawyers and clients simply sign what the lawyers tell them to sign.
[10] It should go without saying that that is not the way that any affidavit is properly prepared. The deponent of an affidavit is required to review its contents and swear or affirm to its truth. It is the obligation of the person commissioning the affidavit to ensure, among other things, that he or she administers the oath or declaration in the manner required by law before signing the jurat or declaration: Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.17, s. 9(3). If the deponent does not understand English, then the affidavit must be translated for the deponent and the jurat on the affidavit must be changed to reflect that fact.
As per the Court of Appeal, and contrary to what was purported as common knowledge, an Affidavit must be prepared with the input of the person who will swear or affirm that the Affidavit is true. It is highly inappropriate for a lawyer or paralegal to put words into the mouth, or onto an Affidavit, of a person who will be taking an Oath and confirming that the words are true unless the person actually knows, or verily believes, that the words are indeed true.
“... I was met with the remarkable response that “everyone” knows that affidavits are prepared by lawyers and clients simply sign what the lawyers tell them to sign”
~ Nordheimer J.A.
Teefy Developments v. Sun, 2021 ONCA 870
After the stern admonishment expressed by the Court of Appeal within the Teefy Developments case as referenced above, among other issues, the issue of improper hearsay within Affidavit documents remains whereas improper Affidavit document concerns were again an issue within China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v. Novalex Inc., 2023 ONSC 3424, and Haventree Bank v. Lording, 2023 ONSC 1077, whereas within each case it was respectively said:
[13] Rule 4.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 requires that, except as otherwise provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure, an affidavit be confined to statements of fact within the personal knowledge of the affiant or to other evidence that the affiant could give if testifying as a witness in court.
[14] Rule 39.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows for affidavits for use on applications to contain statements of the affiant’s information and belief respecting non-contentious facts, provided that both the source of that information and the fact of the affiant’s belief in the veracity of that information is specified in the affidavit.
[15] The permissiveness of rule 39.01(5) “does not offer parties and counsel a license for sloppiness, laxity or the admission of double or triple hearsay” (see: Haventree Bank v. Lording, 2023 ONSC 1077, at para. 6).
[16] The failure to comply with the basic requirements of specifying the source of the affiant’s information and stating the affiant’s belief in the veracity of that information requires that the offending evidence be struck (see: Flight (Re), 2022 ONCA 77, at para. 13).
[4] Many litigants and counsel believe that evidentiary rules in written motions are so lax that virtually anything goes. That is not the case. The presumptive rule regarding affidavits, limiting evidence to facts that an affiant could testify to at trial, is set in Rule 4.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, which states:
(2) An affidavit shall be confined to the statement of facts within the personal knowledge of the deponent or to other evidence that the deponent could give if testifying as a witness in court, except where these rules provide otherwise.
[5] Rule 39.01(4) sets out a limited exception to that rule for affidavits in a motion. It allows hearsay in such affidavits if certain conditions are met. It states:
(4) An affidavit for use on a motion may contain statements of the deponent’s information and belief, if the source of the information and the fact of the belief are specified in the affidavit.
[6] The permissiveness of this subrule does not offer parties and counsel alicence for sloppiness, laxity or the admission of double or triple hearsay, as the Bank attempts to do here.
[7] In Gutierrez v. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, 2019 ONSC 3069, Perell J. wrote at para. 27:
… the Rules of Civil Procedure permit hearsay evidence for motions. An affidavit for use on a motion may contain statements of the deponent's information and belief, if the source of the information and the fact of the belief are specified in the affidavit. A statement in an affidavit that: (a) does not state the source of the affiant's information; or (b) contains inadmissible hearsay, legal and factual argument belonging in the factum, inflammatory rhetoric, or offensive allegations made for the purposes of prejudicing another party may be struck out in whole or in part.
A person who swears under Oath or otherwise affirms that the facts stated within live testimony or stated in a written Affidavit document are, despite a lack of genuine knowledge and doing so merely saying or stating information that the person was told to say or state by someone else, such a person may be committing the criminal act of perjury or fabricating evidence, or another offence, whereas the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, states:
Perjury
131 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.
Fabricating evidence
137 Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Summary Comment
A person who swears or affirms that the contents of an Affidavit are true, meaning that the information stated within the Affidavit is true, must actually know or believe that the information is true. When a person takes Oath and swears or affirms that an Affidavit is true, the person doing so must do so genuinely rather than doing so just because a lawyer or paralegal, or someone else, told the person to do so.
NOTE: A significant multitude of inquiries featuring “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” typically indicate an urgent requirement for capable and effective legal assistance, rather than pinpointing a particular professional designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and possess the authority to advocate for clients in specific litigation contexts. Central to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Denali Paralegal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
