What is the difference between the Impugned Pleads and material facts?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Jane Doe v. Weinstein, 2018 ONSC 1126 (CanLII):
As for the argument that the Impugned Pleadings constitute evidence rather than material facts, as Perell J. noted in Jacobson v. Skurka,[4] particulars of material facts may also be relevant evidence, so the distinction drawn in the rule is not a litmus test for clear differentiation. Here, as described above, the Impugned Pleadings set out material facts that relate directly to Doe’s theory of the case. As such, they are clearly compliant with Rule 25.06 and should not be struck. Limitations Act
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
If a pleading is to be struck, must the pleading be supported by the material facts? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a pleading containing claims of misrepresentation be pleaded more particularity than other pleadings? (Ontario, Canada)
When will a party be required to plead "material facts" in a family law case? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for pleading "material facts"? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a plaintiff continue to seek the same remedy using different legal arguments in different triers of fact? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the difference between the pleadings in paragraphs 32 and 33 and 33 of the pleading conclusions of law? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for pleading material facts in a personal injury action? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the distinction between questions of law, questions of fact and questions of mixed law and fact? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the difference between questions of law and questions of mixed law and fact? (Ontario, Canada)
What is a material change in an order and what is the test for material change? (Ontario, Canada)
