Last Updated: August 23 2026
Can a paralegal or lawyer have me sign an affidavit in Ontario if I do not actually know the facts and I just agree because they told me to?
In Ontario, a person swearing or affirming an affidavit must review it and swear that the contents are true to the person’s own knowledge or belief, not simply sign because a lawyer or paralegal says to do so. The Court of Appeal in Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited v. Sun, 2021 ONCA 870 emphasized that it is not “common knowledge” that lawyers draft affidavits and clients just sign without understanding, and it stressed that the commissioning party must administer the oath properly and translate where needed. The affidavit rules also limit what can be included, including that affidavits generally must be confined to facts within the deponent’s personal knowledge unless a narrow exception applies, and improper hearsay can be struck, per Rule 4.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 and related motion evidence rules. If you are unsure what you are swearing, ask for the document in plain language and, if required, a translation before signing, and get guidance from Cross Legal Services by calling (289) 443-0675 so you can sign only what you genuinely know or believe.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Is a Person Who Is Swearing An Oath to Tell the Truth Within An Affidavit Allowed to Sign the Affidavit Just Because a Lawyer Says to Do So?
When a Person Takes An Oath to Swear or Affirm the Truth of Facts As Stated Within an Affidavit, the Law Expects That Such Person Has First Hand Knowledge That the Stated Facts Are True.
Note: Please contact Cross Legal Services by phone at: (289) 443-0675 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
An Affidavit document is a very serious legal document containing statements that must be stated truthfully based upon the knowledge or beliefs of the person who is swearing or affirming that the information within the Affidavit is indeed true. Accordingly, swearing or affirming that the statements within an Affidavit are true, while being without actual knowledge or belief, is improper and perhaps criminal.
The Law
In the recent court case of Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited v. Sun, 2021 ONCA 870, the Court of Appeal addressed the serious concern regarding an Affidavit that was prepared by a legal representative and then provided to a person to make Oath and swear or affirm that the Affidavit contents were true despite the person being unable to read the Affidavit and therefore being unaware of what information was stated as truthful. Upon reviewing the suggestion that it is notoriously understood and common that a legal representative, such as a lawyer or paralegal, will draft an Affidavit containing statements that a person should state and then the lawyer or paralegal will provide the Affidavit to a person to swear or affirm under Oath that the statements are true, 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 explained by the Court of Appeal in Teefy Developments, the input of the person who will swear or affirm that the statements within the Affidavit document are true is required; and, when a lawyer or paralegal, figuratively put words into the mouth of a person, by drafting an Affidavit without the genuine input of the person who will swear or affirm that the Affidavit contains truthful statements, the lawyer or paralegal acts inappropriately.
“... 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
Despite the admonishment from the Court of Appeal in Teefy Developments as provided above, the problem of improper hearsay continues. Addressing the same point are the cases of China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v. Novalex Inc., 2023 ONSC 3424, and Haventree Bank v. Lording, 2023 ONSC 1077, wherein each it was 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.
If a person is providing live voice testimony as a witness, or provides witness testimony via statements sworn or affirmed as truthful within an Affidavit document, despite that the person is without actual knowledge or belief of the expressed facts and is instead merely stating what the person was told to say or state, such a person may be committing a criminal act per the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, whereas it is stated:
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 quantity of online queries pertaining to “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a necessity for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation issues. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that function. Cross Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at achieving efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
