Yes No Share to Facebook
Adverse Inference:
Negative Presumptions for Failing to Present Evidence
Last Updated: July 02 2026
Question: What happens in an Ontario civil case when a party fails to produce documents or testimony that the court expects them to have?
Answer: Lippa Legal Services can help Ontario parties understand how the adverse inference principle works when someone does not produce relevant evidence they were required to produce, control, or would reasonably be expected to call, because courts may (at their discretion) presume the missing evidence would be unfavourable or not support that party’s position, and the strength of that inference depends on case-specific factors like whether there is a legitimate explanation and whether the evidence was within the party’s exclusive control or equally available. If you are dealing with a motion, discovery dispute, or missing-witness or missing-document issue, a paralegal can help you assess what evidence the court may expect, how to frame your explanation, and how to prepare a submissions strategy, call (416) 241-4529 to get started.
Understanding the Principle of Adverse Inference as an Evidentiary Rule Arising from Failure to Produce Evidence
An adverse inference, which may sometimes also be called a negative inference, may occur a litigant fails to provide evidence or fails to provide testimony that was reasonably expected to come from the litigant. Where the litigant fails to provide the expected evidence or the expected testimony, the court may presume that the litigant avoided the evidence or testimony because such was unfavourable.
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 adverse inference principle is discretionary and a judge is without a requirement to apply the principle where circumstances warrant. The basis for discretionary application of the adverse inference principle was explained by the Court of Appeal in Parris v. Laidley, 2012 ONCA 755, whereas it was stated:
[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 significant quantity of online searches focusing on “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically signals a desire for prompt and effective legal assistance rather than merely a certain job title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals come under the regulation of the same Law Society that governs lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specified litigation cases. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural knowledge are fundamental to this role. Lippa Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, emphasizing strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.