Last Updated: August 22 2026
How can an adverse inference affect my Ontario civil case if I can’t produce documents or call a witness?
An adverse inference in Ontario civil litigation can be drawn when a party fails to testify or fails to produce relevant evidence or documents that were required or should have been produced, especially where that evidence or witness was within the party’s control, and the court may presume the missing material would negatively affect that party’s case. The inference is discretionary and case-specific, looking at factors like any legitimate explanation, whether the witness was within exclusive control, and whether the witness or documents were key or equally available to both sides. If you need help organizing evidence, witness information, or drafting sworn materials for court, paralegal and notary support from VP Legal Services & Notary can help you present your case more clearly in the way courts expect, call (437) 286-1499.
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 may arise where a party fails to testify, or where a party fails to lead evidence that is in control of the evidence, and from such a failure the court may thereby presume that the reason for the absence of the evidence or the absence of testimony is that such would negatively affect the party who fails to provide the testimony or the evidence.
Note: Please contact VP Legal Services & Notary by phone at: (437) 286-1499 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
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 volume of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a requirement for prompt and proficient legal assistance rather than a specific type of legal professional. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this position. VP Legal Services & Notary provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy with the goal of securing efficient and advantageous resolutions for clients.
