In Ontario’s civil justice system, the burden of proof determines which party carries the responsibility of proving the facts necessary to succeed in a case. In the Small Claims Court, this principle remains fundamental, despite the court’s simplified procedures. The party who initiates the claim bears the legal and evidentiary responsibility to establish the case on the balance of probabilities.

The Rules of the Small Claims Court (O. Reg. 258/98) and the Courts of Justice Act set out the procedural framework, but the evidentiary standard originates from the broader principles of common law. Tim at MTS Paralegal Services provides professional representation to clients, ensuring that evidence is properly organized, relevant, and persuasive in meeting the legal threshold.

The Balance of Probabilities

In civil proceedings, including Small Claims Court actions, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. This means that the plaintiff must demonstrate that their version of events is more likely than not to be true. In quantitative terms, it does not require certainty but rather a probability exceeding 50 per cent.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in F.H. v. McDougall (2008 SCC 53), clarified that there is only one civil standard of proof—the balance of probabilities—and that evidence must always be clear, convincing, and cogent. This standard contrasts with criminal law, where proof must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

For example, in a contract dispute, a plaintiff must show that a valid agreement existed, that the defendant breached it, and that the breach caused quantifiable damages. If the evidence equally supports both parties’ versions of events, the plaintiff fails to meet the burden of proof, and judgment will be rendered in favour of the defendant.

Tim at MTS Paralegal Services assists clients in understanding this evidentiary threshold and preparing cases that meet or exceed it.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

Although the initial burden rests with the plaintiff, the burden of proof may shift during the course of a proceeding. Once a plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case—that is, evidence which, if believed, supports each element of the claim—the burden may shift to the defendant to refute or challenge that evidence.

For instance, in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must first show that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused damages. Once these elements are established, the defendant must rebut the claim by demonstrating, for example, that the damage was unavoidable, the duty was fulfilled, or the plaintiff contributed to the loss.

However, the legal burden—the obligation to ultimately persuade the court—remains with the plaintiff throughout the proceeding. The defendant’s role is typically to cast sufficient doubt on the plaintiff’s version or to present competing evidence that undermines the probability of liability.

Tim at MTS Paralegal Services prepares detailed pleadings and evidentiary submissions to ensure the burden of proof is properly managed and strategically addressed throughout the litigation process.

The Role of Documentary and Testimonial Evidence

Evidence is the foundation upon which the burden of proof is met. In Small Claims Court, both documentary and testimonial evidence carry significant weight.

1. Documentary Evidence:
   Contracts, invoices, receipts, emails, photographs, and written communications are key exhibits used to substantiate claims or defences. Under Rule 18.02, all documents intended for use at trial must be disclosed to the opposing party prior to the hearing to ensure procedural fairness.
2. Testimonial Evidence:
   Witnesses, including parties themselves, provide oral evidence under oath. The credibility of witnesses often determines the outcome of a case. Consistent, detailed, and corroborated testimony is far more persuasive than vague or contradictory statements.
3. Expert Evidence:
   In certain cases, the court may permit expert evidence, such as reports from appraisers, engineers, or accountants, provided it is relevant and properly disclosed.

The court assesses the totality of evidence through the lens of reasonableness, consistency, and probability. Tim at MTS Paralegal Services ensures that all evidence is properly organized and presented in accordance with Ontario’s evidentiary rules.

Credibility and Reliability in Fulfilling the Burden

The credibility of witnesses and the reliability of evidence are central to satisfying the burden of proof. The deputy judge assesses whether witnesses appear truthful, whether their testimony aligns with other evidence, and whether their recollection seems accurate and unbiased.

In Faryna v. Chorny (1951 B.C.C.A. 450), the court emphasized that credibility is not merely about demeanour but about the harmony between testimony and the surrounding circumstances. The most believable story is the one that accords with common sense and corroborative evidence.

Tim at MTS Paralegal Services guides clients through witness preparation, ensuring that testimony remains factual, concise, and relevant to the legal issues at hand.

Common Misunderstandings About the Burden of Proof

Several misconceptions frequently arise in Small Claims Court:

• Assuming proof is automatic: A claim supported by strong emotions or assumptions will fail without admissible evidence.
• Believing verbal agreements are unenforceable: Oral contracts are valid in law, but they are more difficult to prove without documentation.
• Expecting the court to investigate: The court is neutral and relies solely on the evidence presented by the parties. The responsibility for presenting proof rests entirely with the litigants.

Understanding these distinctions is vital to achieving success in civil proceedings. Tim at MTS Paralegal Services helps clients avoid procedural and evidentiary pitfalls that can undermine legitimate claims.

The Importance of Preparation and Legal Representation

Meeting the burden of proof requires more than simply attending court—it demands thorough preparation, organized evidence, and a coherent legal argument. The Small Claims Court system, while designed for accessibility, still applies the principles of procedural fairness and evidentiary sufficiency with rigour.

Tim at MTS Paralegal Services, located in Kitchener, Ontario, represents clients across the province in matters involving contractual disputes, unpaid debts, property damage, and other civil claims. With extensive experience in Ontario’s Small Claims Court, Tim ensures that every case presented meets the evidentiary standard required to persuade the court on the balance of probabilities.

For professional representation in preparing and proving your case, contact Tim at MTS Paralegal Services — Small claims court, it’s what we do. Visit mtsparalegalservices.com for more information.