Yes No Share to Facebook
Swearing or Affirming an Affidavit:
Requires the Person Doing So to Actually Know of the Stated Details
Last Updated: August 23 2026
Question: Can a person sign an affidavit swearing the truth just because a lawyer or paralegal tells them to, even if they did not read or personally know the facts?
Answer: In Ontario, a deponent must review an affidavit and swear or affirm it only if they personally know the facts, or genuinely believe them based on a proper basis, and it is not proper to sign “because counsel said so” if the deponent does not understand or lacks knowledge or belief. Courts have stressed that affidavits must be prepared with the deponent’s input, and if the person does not understand the language, the affidavit needs translation and the jurat updated, as noted in Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited v. Sun, 2021 ONCA 870. Ontario motion affidavits also must comply with affidavit evidence rules on personal knowledge and information and belief, and improper hearsay or missing sources can lead to striking. If you are preparing to sign an affidavit (or correcting one), Forseti Legal Services can help paralegals draft and review affidavit wording for accuracy and compliance in Ontario; call (705) 806-7577 for guidance before you swear or file.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Is It Improper For a Person to Swear the Truth of An Affidavit By Just Signing Where a Lawyer or Paralegal Says to Sign?
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: Please contact Forseti Legal Services by phone at: (705) 806-7577 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
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 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
Following the concern from the Court of Appeal in Teefy Developments as shown above, among other issues, improper hearsay within Affidavit documents continues. The same or similar concerns were addressed within the cases of China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v. Novalex Inc., 2023 ONSC 3424, and Haventree Bank v. Lording, 2023 ONSC 1077, wherein each case it was respectively stated:
[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
The deponent or affiant, being the person who swears or affirms that the facts stated within an Affidavit are true, must hold first hand knowledge or a genuine basis for believing that the facts as stated or indeed true. The person who takes Oath and swears or affirms that the facts within an Affidavit are true must do so without doing so just because the person was told to do so by a lawyer or paralegal, or another person.
NOTE: A significant quantity of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a desire for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than seeking a particular title. In Ontario, accredited paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specified litigation matters. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural knowledge are fundamental to this position. Forseti Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and effective advocacy to attain efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
