Drafting Bulletproof Affidavits 2025

Table of Contents

1. OVERVIEW OF AFFIDAVITS
   
2. REASONS FOR AFFIDAVITS
   
3. STYLE AND SUBSTANCE OF AFFIDAVITS
   a. General rules
   b. Organization
   c. Sworn or affirmed
   d. Commissioners
   e. Alterations
   f. Basis for knowledge
   g. Attestations
   
4. CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS
   
5. PITFALLS IN AFFIDAVIT DRAFTING
   a. Effect of defects and irregularities
   b. One affiant only
   c. Relevant facts only
   d. Offensive language
   e. Oath helping
   f. Hearsay
   g. Evidence dumping
   h. Inadvertent breach of privilege
   
6. AFFIDAVIT PRECEDENTS

These materials were prepared by Jaime M. Sarophim of Slater Vecchio LLP and Gurminder Sandhu, K.C. of Hamilton Duncan Law Corporation for the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, October 7, 2025.

1. OVERVIEW OF AFFIDAVITS

An affidavit is a method of presenting written evidence in legal proceedings. It is a written statement of relevant facts that is sworn or affirmed before a commissioner for taking affidavits.[1]

In certain proceedings, like applications and summary trials, viva voce or oral evidence may not be permitted or preferred, and affidavits may be the only means or the preferable means to tender evidence.  

Both written affidavit and oral evidence are afforded the same weight, because they are both made under oath.

Beard J. noted in Tymkin v. Ewatski, [2001] M.J. No. 415, 2001 MBQB 246 at para. 11 ((Man. Q.B.): “An affidavit is a document setting out only the facts to which the deponent could testify in court….”

Honesty and accuracy are essential. Affidavits include evidence made under oath and making false statements may result in negative consequences both civilly and criminally.

2. REASONS FOR AFFIDAVITS

There are numerous reasons for providing evidence by affidavit including:

1. Enables parties to provide evidence in support of their position in a legal proceeding;
2. Assists the court in deciding a case on its merits;
3. Creates efficiencies for tendering evidence in legal proceedings which reduces court time and expedite resolution of a matter; [2]
4. Confirms service of legal documents (i.e. an affidavit of service from a process server to prove personal service);
5. Furthers disclosure and discovery requirements (i.e. financial disclosure in a family proceeding); and
6. Records facts in administrative, regulatory or transactional contexts.

Attachments to an affidavit are called exhibits.

There is no requirement to file a responsive affidavit if objecting to an affidavit.[3] However, there may be circumstances in which further evidence needs to be tendered to respond to the facts in an opposing party’s affidavit and in such a case, a subsequent affidavit can be commissioned.

If the facts in an affidavit change, it may be useful or even necessary to file a subsequent affidavit correcting, clarifying or setting out the change in facts. 

3. STYLE AND SUBSTANCE OF AFFIDAVITS

To ensure matters are addressed efficiently, there are rules that must be followed with respect to style and substance. For example, affidavits are required to have numbered paragraphs, separately identified exhibits and sequential page numbers including page numbers for exhibits.[4] Evidence in an affidavit must also be confined only to facts and should not include case law or argument.

a. General Rules

The Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009 (“SCCR”) include requirements for the form and content of affidavits.

Rule 22-2(2) reads:

(2) An affidavit

(a) must be expressed in the first person and show the name, address and occupation of the person swearing or affirming the affidavit,

(b) if the person swearing or affirming the affidavit is a party or the lawyer, agent, director, officer or employee of a party, must state that fact,

(c) must be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, and

(d) may be in Form 109.[5]

b. Organization

Consecutively numbered paragraphs are more readable and comprehensible and allow parties to reference evidence in an affidavit efficiently.[6] Each paragraph should be concise, succinct and separated. Include only relevant facts, nothing superfluous or repetitious. See for example the family law case of Bater v. Veldkamp, 2008 MBQB 257 where the court criticizes the petitioner’s affidavit for being lengthy, 59 pages and 201 paragraphs. Further criticism included that it contained irrelevant evidence and opinion evidence such as whether one of their children should have a haircut. It is poor advocacy and a waste of courts’ time to have to dig through irrelevant detail to find buried salient facts. 

Headings are encouraged to help organize content and improve efficiency but are not required.[7]

Exhibits should be tabbed and included in the sequential page numbering. Each exhibit must be labelled and signed by the commissioner.

c. Sworn or affirmed

In accordance with Rule 22-2(4)(a) an affidavit must be sworn or affirmed by the person making the affidavit, known as the affiant. Section 29 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 238 defined: “affidavit” or “oath” as including “an affirmation, a statutory declaration, or a solemn declaration made under the [BC Evidence Act], or under the Canada Evidence Act; and the word “swear” includes solemnly declare or affirm”. Swearing an affidavit requires placing one’s hand on a physical Bible. In our increasingly secular and diverse society, swearing an affidavit is less common and most affidavits are affirmed. The validity of the oath taken is not affected by the absence of or difference in religious belief.[8] It is not necessary that the affiant raise their hand when making their oath.[9]

The Law Society of British Columbia’s Code of Professional Conduct, Appendix “A” at paragraph 13 of the Commentary, suggests possible wording. For sworn affidavits, the suggestion is: “Do you swear that the contents of this affidavit are true, so help you God?”. For affidavits that are affirmed, the suggestion is: “Do you solemnly affirm [or words with the same effect] that the evidence given by you is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?”. In either case, the affiant must answer in the affirmative.

The affiant must sign the affidavit in front of the person commissioning it pursuant to Rule 22-2(4), or if unable to sign, must place their mark on it. The commissioner to the affidavit must also sign it and identify and sign each exhibit attached to the affidavit in accordance with subrules (5) and (8). There are stamps available in most firms for each exhibit that can be filled in by the witness.

d. COMMISSIONERS

There are only certain people that can commission or witness an affidavit. A commissioner must be a competent adult. Sections 59 and 60 through 64 of the BC Evidence Act set out who can administer an oath for the purposes of an affidavit, either inside or outside of British Columbia. They include:

1. a judge of a court in British Columbia;
2. justices;
3. registrars, deputy registrars, district registrars and deputy district registrars of the Supreme Court;
4. practicing lawyers;
5. notaries public;
6. the local government corporate officer and that person’s deputy;
7. the secretary treasurer of a board of school trustees or francophone education authority;
8. coroners;
9. government agents and deputy government agents;
10. police officers and RCMP members; and
11. social workers.

Other potential commissioners can be found in Commissioners for Taking Affidavits for British Columbia Regulation, B.C. Reg. 142/2015. There is also a process to apply to become a commissioner for taking affidavits in section 56 of the BC Evidence Act. Some law offices have applied for legal assistants and paralegals to become commissioners to improve efficiency and free up lawyer time. Commissioners permitted under section 56 cannot charge for commissioning affidavits and the commission expires on a regular basis, so it must be diarized and renewed.

e. Alterations

If an affidavit is altered after it is signed, only the person commissioning the affidavit needs to initial the changes.[10] However, it is common and preferred that both the commissioner and the affiant initial the changes.

Paragraph 15 of Appendix “A” to the Law Society of British Columbia’s Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia provides:

If an affidavit is altered after it has been sworn [or affirmed], it cannot be used unless it is sworn again [or reaffirmed]. Swearing again [or reaffirming] can be done by the commissioner initialing the alterations, taking the oath again from the deponent and then signing the altered affidavit. A second jurat should be added, commencing with the word “resworn” [or “reaffirmed”].

f. Basis for knowledge

An affiant must set out the basis for that person’s knowledge. It may not be enough to provide the affiant’s title or role. You may need to include information about the function of that title or role and describe how they have the personal knowledge they claim to have.[11]

In Kissel v. Rocky View (County), 2020 ABQB 406 at paragraph 61, that Court noted:

Personal knowledge encompasses a wide variety of personal observations. A witness might have observed some relevant event; be able to identify an otherwise admissible record such as a business record; describe his or her belief held at some material time which is relevant to the issues (eg, evidence of belief which explains why the witness took a particular action at a particular time); or describe some relevant act or statement made by another person out of Court if otherwise admissible (eg, an admission against interest, a spontaneous exclamation). In contrast, the Applicants in their affidavits often infer matters of fact, presumably based on what they saw or heard others doing or saying. With few exceptions (which do not apply in this case), inferences are for the judge, not fact witnesses. The inferences are not admissible evidence.

In Canada (Attorney General) v. Steelhead Aggregates Ltd., 2022 BCSC 34 at paragraph 17, Ball J. noted:

Personal knowledge arises from events or occurrences which the affiant has witnessed or experienced firsthand. Reading a document or being told of an event creates a situation where the affiant is relating hearsay, not personal knowledge about which a witness could testify at trial (see L.M.U. v. R.L.U., 2004 BCSC 95 at paras. 32–37).

It is common for staff to include in the initial paragraph, “I am a paralegal at [firm] in this matter and as such have personal knowledge…”

g. Attestation

An affidavit requires an attestation, also known as a certificate or statement, and formerly known as a jurat. An attestation is the clause at the end of the affidavit showing when, where and before whom the oath was sworn, or affirmation was made. SCCR Rule 22-2(5) provides that the following language should be included in the attestation: “Sworn (or affirmed) before me at [city], [province] on [dd/mm/yyyy].

Supreme Court of British Columbia Practice Direction 1 provides that a commissioner must type or legibly write their name where they are signing the attestation. Where a commissioner’s name is not legibly identified, the affidavit may be inadmissible.[12] There is a potential exception to this for criminal and administrative matters,[13] but it is best practice to include a legible name to avoid any potential issues.

It must be clear whether the affidavit is being sworn or whether it is being affirmed. It cannot be both sworn and affirmed. Reference to either, but not both should be included. For example, use: “I, [name], of [city], [province], MAKE OATH AND SWEAR” or “I, [name], of [city], [province], MAKE OATH AND AFFIRM”. Do not use something like: “I, [name], of [city], [province], MAKE OATH AND SWEAR” or “I, [name], of [city], [province], MAKE OATH AND SAY/SWEAR (OR AFFIRM)”.[14]

The attestation must not be on a page separate from the body of the affidavit.[15]  

4. CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS

Just the facts, ma’am

– Sergeant Joe Friday, Dragnet

Courts are increasingly looking at affidavits with greater scrutiny. It is becoming standard practice for parties to argue the admissibility of portions of an affidavit or the entirety of the affidavit. The content of an affidavit should include only relevant and salient facts which would be admissible in evidence at trial[16] with attached exhibits supporting those facts.[17] The exhibits should speak for themselves.

In Enns v. Goertzen, 2019 ONSC 4233 at paragraphs 65-67 the Court provided a helpful summary of admissibility: “Evidence is admissible if it is relevant, material and not otherwise the proper subject of an exclusionary rule.”

Inadmissible evidence in an affidavit lengthens court proceedings, requires the opposing party to determine how to respond, and risks the decision-maker falling into legal error by relying on inadmissible material. Additionally, if the affidavit is wholly or partly inadmissible, there may be no or insufficient evidence in front of the court in your case.[18] This may lead to issues with credibility of the affiant, perception and professionalism of counsel and ultimately may harm or prejudice the case.[19]

Opinion evidence may be tendered in an affidavit if the affiant is an expert witness. There, the affiant should be qualified as an expert to give that opinion and should provide the facts and assumptions or foundational basis for that opinion.[20] Affidavits from expert witnesses may contain opinion evidence.

In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v Nova Chemicals Corp, 2015 ABQB 401 at para graph11, the Court clarified an exception to lay persons providing opinion evidence where:

• They are in a better position than a trier of fact to form the conclusion;
• The conclusion is one that persons of ordinary experience are able to make;
• The witness, although not expert, has the experiential capacity to make the conclusion; and
• The opinions being expressed are merely a compendious mode of stating facts that are too subtle or complicated to be narrated as effectively without resort to conclusions (Law of Evidence at 197198).
• The line between “fact” and “opinion” is not always clear, and discerning which it is can be a difficult exercise…given this difficulty, courts should resort to the criteria in R v Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9, as they offer a flexible measure of admissibility that explores credentials, probative value, and prejudice…

In Dow, a lay person’s observations and opinion on speed and the state of another person’s intoxication were admissible.

An affidavit must be in English, legibly printed, typewritten, written or reproduced on 8 ½ by 11-inch durable white paper or durable off-white recycled paper in accordance with SCCR Rule 22-3(2). Exhibits must also be in English.

In British Columbia, exhibited documents less than 10 pages must be attached to the affidavit. If greater than 10 pages, the exhibit need not be attached but must be made available to the Court and to the other parties for inspection prior.[21]

It is preferable that affiants set out facts in plain language and their own words as if speaking in their own voice. Avoid casual slang language and technical lawyer-speak.[22] Failure to follow this principle may result in scrutiny of the affiant’s credibility and reliability, particularly where their evidence is not tested under cross-examination.

5. PITFALLS IN AFFIDAVIT DRAFTING

a. Effect of defects and irregularities

In Ismail v. Fleming, 2018 ONSC 6780 at paragraph 19, the Court found:

Violations of the rules of evidence relating to affidavits are not mere technicalities or irregularities that may be cured or waived. To the contrary, where it is clear in law that affidavit evidence is inadmissible, leaving it on the record is embarrassing and prejudicial to the fair hearing of a motion or application. Evidence tendered in violation of the rules of evidence and Rules of Civil Procedure therefore must be regarded as worthless, and should not be considered; e.g., by the court refusing to receive the affidavit, striking the relevant paragraphs from the offending affidavit, and/or by the court otherwise paying no regard to the evidence. …

Section 67 of the BC Evidence Act and SCCR Rule 22-2(14) provide that the court has discretion to admit an affidavit even if it contains an irregularity or defect in form.[23]

b. One affiant only

Joint affidavits should be avoided[24] and likely contravene SCCR Rule 22-2(2)(a) that contemplates only a single affiant.

c. Relevant facts only

Affidavits should contain only relevant facts, not opinion, innuendo,[25] descriptive adjectives,[26] legal argument or submissions.[27] The Court in 30 Bay ORC Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2021 ONSC 251 at paragraph 118 cautioned:

… it seems to be the rare affidavit these days that strictly adheres to the facts; attempts at argument, summarizing, spinning the facts, and drawing inferences is not at all uncommon. While in no way condoning this trend, the court is well aware of the difference between fact and argument and that the drawing of inferences is for the lawyers to argue and the court to decide, not the witnesses.

In Tepper, supraat paragraph 12, the Court criticized the inclusion of irrelevant facts:

These are but a few of the numerous details that are either superfluous or extremely tenuous to the issues at hand. Their inclusion does not increase or diminish the probability of the existence of the facts in issue in any measurable way, either individually or taken as a whole. Their inclusion does not promote the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the issues, and the time it takes to review and categorize the material is disproportionate to the amount involved in this proceeding and its complexity.

In Tymkin, supra at paragraph 11, the Court distinguishes affidavits from pleadings:

The purpose of an affidavit is much more limited than that of a pleading. An affidavit is a document setting out only the facts to which the deponent could testify in court. In the case of an affidavit filed in support of a motion, it can also contain certain statements of hearsay, if the deponent sets out the source of his or her knowledge and deposes that he or she believes the fact to be true. An affidavit is not, however, a pleading and should not be treated as such. An affidavit cannot contain the following: a) opinions of the deponent, unless that person is an expert and is deposing to a opinion within his or her expertise; b) conclusions of fact or law; c) legal argument; d) irrelevant statements.

Sections 55 and 66 of the BC Evidence Act provide that opinion or belief may be included in an affidavit. Despite those provisions, in practice such content may still be found inadmissible. For example, in Home Equity Development Inc. v. Crow, 2002 BCSC 546 at paragraph 30 the Court stated:

Opinion evidence is inadmissible unless given by an expert witness. Personal opinions or a description of the deponent’s or another person’s reaction to events is inappropriate and is nothing more than argument in the guise of evidence. It should not be admitted, and those portions of the affidavits containing opinion and reaction will be struck unless the plaintiffs did not object to them.

There are numerous cases with similar findings about evidence based on emotion, opinion and inference.[28]

For example, avoid “I had the impression that”, “I was shocked”, “I think it is suspicious that”, “In my view…”, “It was unfair that…”, “It is clear to me…”, “I submit…”, “I argue….”, and “the law states or indicates”.

Facts should be precise. For example, the term “and/or” should not be used in affidavits or pleadings. This shortcut used to express alternatives is viewed as inappropriate. It creates confusion about what was intended and there is an alternate way to state it more plainly.[29] Its use may call into question the reliability of that evidence.[30] Another example is to be as clear as possible about dates by including month, day and year rather than making vague statements like “sometime last year”.

Do not include “facts” that are contested and still need to be determined by the court.[31]

d. Offensive language

Offensive and scandalous allegations that are derogatory and should be avoided but will not be struck from an affidavit unless they are also irrelevant.[32] Allegations of this nature often blur the lines between fact and opinion evidence. If they are found to be opinion evidence, they may be inadmissible on that basis.[33] Examples include a husband’s commentary on his wife’s cosmetic surgery[34] and an affiant’s inference that another person’s behavior was so bizarre, they must have been using drugs.[35] An affiant should refrain from making allegations of wrongdoing or malfeasance by the opposing party’s lawyer.[36]

In Price v. Price, 2020 ONSC 3748 at paragraph 16, the Court cautioned: “… rhetorical excess is the enemy of good advocacy. It engenders emotional reasoning.”

e. Oath helping

Affidavits cannot be used to “oath help” or bolster the veracity of the evidence of another affiant. In R. v. Burns, [1994] 1 SCR 656 (S.C.C.), the Court found that “evidence adduced solely for the purpose of proving that a witness is truthful is inadmissible.”

The rule against oath-helping holds that evidence adduced solely for the purpose of proving that a witness is truthful is inadmissible. Additionally, affidavits that simply repeat the same evidence are may be met with criticism.

f. Hearsay

Hearsay evidence should not be included if it would not otherwise be admissible at a trial. There is a presumption that hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception.[37] The principled approach to the admission of hearsay evidence is discussed in R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40 and is summarized in R. v. Mapara, supra at paragraphs 13-15 and admissibility is a question of law:

• Hearsay evidence is presumptively inadmissible unless it falls under an exception to the hearsay rule. The traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule remain presumptively in place.
• A hearsay exception can be challenged to determine whether it is supported by indicia of necessity and reliability, required by the principled approach. The exception can be modified as necessary to bring it into compliance.
• In “rare cases”, evidence falling within an existing exception may be excluded because the indicia of necessity and reliability are lacking in the particular circumstances of the case.
• If hearsay evidence does not fall under a hearsay exception, it may still be admitted if indicia of reliability and necessity are established on a voir dire …

There are statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule including SCCR Rule 13 which allows some hearsay evidence in interlocutory applications, but that evidence must only be factual.

For example, avoid “[name] told me that…”, “I learned that…”, “It is well known…”, or “I understand from [name] that…”.

Staff often include oral communications that others in their firm told them about. For example, their lawyer told them about a telephone call they had with opposing counsel. Although hearsay should be avoided, if hearsay is being relied upon, the source must be identified and the affiant must attest to their belief in it.[38] Firsthand evidence in an affidavit will trump or be weighed more favorably than hearsay.[39] In CIBC Mortgages Inc. v. Walji, 2001 ABQB 169 at paragraph 7 the court comments: “The affidavit of a compliant paralegal is a poor substitute for a sworn denial by the party alleged to have uttered the words.”

g. Evidence Dumping

In a busy practice, it can be tempting to include all facts, including correspondence, into an affidavit without proper explanation or organization.[40] If a trier of fact cannot make sense of the evidence included in the affidavit, it may refuse to hear the matter, or the evidence may be inadmissible. Conversely, ensure that you double-check your exhibits, so none are missed.

h. Inadvertent breach of privilege

Be wary that if an affiant includes correspondence or communication between their firm and a client, they risk breaching solicitor-client privilege over the entire file. This most often occurs where a law firm is trying to show the court that they have made best efforts in discovery. The affiant may inadvertently include correspondence where the lawyer was diligent in following up with the client in possession of information or documents sought. Including such communication may be an inadvertent waiver of solicitor-client privilege over part of or the entirety of the file.  

6. AFFIDAVIT PRECEDENTS

Common types of affidavits include:

1. Affidavit of Service: to prove legal documents were served on another party.
2. Affidavit in Support of Application: provides facts to support an application.
3. Financial Affidavit: in family law parties are required to provide proof of their respective financial circumstances including assets, debts and income (see Form F30 in Supreme Court Family Proceedings).
4. Affidavit regarding Document Disclosure: supports or defends an application for document production or lists and verifies documents relevant to a claim.
5. Affidavit in Probate or Administration relating to an Estate Matter: confirms details of familiar relationships, will, executor, assets and debts of the estate.
6. Affidavit of Execution of Identity: confirms a document was properly signed and witnessed which is often required in real estate and commercial transactions.

Form precedents are generally available online through the website of the British Columbia Supreme Court and Provincial Court and in resources like the CLEBC Practice Manuals. Court forms can be found here: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/courthouse-services/documents-forms-records/court-forms

Below is a brief example of the style of an affidavit:

This is the …[1st/2nd/3rd/etc.]….affidavit of
……[name]…… in this case
and was made on…..[dd/mmm/yyyy]…..

No. [court file number]
[Name of Registry] Registry

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

[PLAINTIFF’S NAME]

Plaintiff

AND:

[DEFENDANT’S NAME]

Defendant

---

AFFIDAVIT OF [FULL NAME]

---

I, [Full Name], of [address], [occupation], SWEAR (or AFFIRM) THAT:

1. I am the [plaintiff/defendant/applicant/respondent/counsel/paralegal] in this proceeding, and as such I have personal knowledge of the matters set out in this affidavit, except where stated to be on information and belief.
2. On [date], I attended a meeting with the defendant at [location]. At that meeting, the defendant stated that the payment of [$amount] would be made to me by [date].
3. On [date], I checked my bank account and confirmed that no payment had been received. Attached to this affidavit and marked as Exhibit “A” is a true copy of my bank statement for [date].
4. On [date], I sent an email to the defendant inquiring about the overdue payment. Attached and marked as Exhibit “B” is a true copy of that email and the defendant’s reply.
5. To date, I have not received the payment promised by the defendant.

SWORN (OR AFFIRMED) BEFORE ME	)
at ……, British Columbia	)
on……[dd/mmm/yyyy]	)
	)
[Signature of commissioner]	) [Print Affiant’s Name]
___________________	) ___________________
A commissioner for taking affidavits	)
for British Columbia	)
[print name or affix stamp of commissioner]	)

Below is a brief example of the wording to be used in an exhibit stamp on the first page of each exhibit:

This is Exhibit “[exhibit letter”] referred to in the Affidavit of [ name ] sworn (or affirmed) before me at [ city ] , British Columbia this [day], day of [ month, year ]. [ signature of commissioner ] A commissioner for Taking Affidavits for British Columbia

---

[1] Sermeno v. Trejo, 2000 BCSC 846 at paragraph 13.

[2] Taherkhani v. Estate, 2021 BCSC 1746 at paragraph 35.

[3] Moffitt v. TD Canada Trust, 2021 ONSC 6133 at paragraph 176.

[4] SCCR Rule 22-3(10).

[5] Link to Form 109: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/courthouse-services/court-files-records/court-forms/supreme-civil/109-affidavit.pdf

[6] Lu v. Shen, 2020 BCSC 490 at paragraph 123 and Csak v. Mokos, [1995] O.J. No. 4027m 18 R.F.L. (4^th) 161 at paragraph 11.

[7] Tepper v. The Owners Strata Plan 785, [2018] B.C.J. No. 257, 2018 BCSC 223 at paragraphs 7 and 8.

[8] Evidence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 124 (the “BC Evidence Act”), section 21.

[9] BC Evidence Act, section 22.

[10] SCCR, Rule 22-2(11).

[11] Affinity Credit Union 2013 v. Vortex Drilling Ltd., 2017 SKQB 228 at paragraph 28.

[12] Vinski et al. v. Lacket al. (1987), 61 O.R. (2d) 379 at paragraphs 14, 20-21,  Vuu v. Andrade, [2005] O.J. No. 5337 at paragraph 4 and Reyes v. Esbin, [2016] O.J. No. 6460, 2016 ONSC 7755 at paragraphs 27-28.

[13] Johnston v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2007 BCSC 1044 at paragraph 61.

[14] British Columbia v. Adamson, [2016] B.C.J. No. 645, 2016 BCSC 584 at paragraph 19.

[15] North Vancouver (District) v. Babyeats Ltd., [2014] B.C.J. No. 988, 2014 BCSC 890 at paragraph 73.

[16] SCCR Rule 22-2(12).

[17] Kings County (Municipality) v. Annapolis County (Municipality), 2018 NSSC 303 at paragraph 3.

[18] McMahon v. Harper, 2017 BCSC 2328 at paragraph 109.

[19] Coldwater First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 292 at paragraph 21.

[20] Johnson v Couture, 2002 BCSC 1804 at paragraphs 13-16.

[21] SCCR Rule 22-2(9).

[22] Nguyen v. Dang, 2017 BCSC 1409 at paragraphs 17-19.

[23] See for example Harbin Ding Culture v. Newman, 2004 BCSC 107 at paragraphs 17-24, where the Court allowed a party to rely on affidavits even though it was not clear whether the Chinese lawyer that commissioned them had the authority to do so and did not include the proper language about how the affiants’ signatures were witnessed. See also Otal v. Azure Foods Inc., 2017 BCSC 1655 where an affidavit was admitted when the commissioner forgot to sign the attestation, but signed all the exhibits, and advised the court that he took the affiant’s oath and the failure to sign was an oversight on his part.

[24] Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 829 at paragraphs 34-37 and McClelland v. Sarazen Realty Inc., 2019 ONSC 315 at paragraphs 68-69.

[25] Stevens v. Associated Lodges of the Village of Douglastown Trust, 2018 NBQB 82.

[26] See Ross River Dena Council v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 YKSC 45 at paras. 15-16 for examples of inappropriate use of adjectives.

[27] C. (A.J.) a.k.a. F. (A.J.) v. C. (R.), 2006 BCSC 828 at paragraph 10.

[28] See also: Dlouhy v. Dlouhy, 130 Sask. R. 285, Union 2013 v. Vortex Drilling Ltd., 2017 SKQB 228, Ismail v. Fleming, 2018 ONSC 6780, Chamberlain v. School District #36 (Surrey), [1998] B.C.J. No. 2923, 60 B.C.L.R. (3d) 311, William v. British Columbia, 2004 BCSC 1374, Evans v. Evans and Finkenzeller, [1998] O.J. No. 5098, 83 O.T.C. 154, Stebner v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2019 SKQB 91, DeMarco v. Imperial Ginseng Products Ltd., [2019] B.C.J. No. 2063, 2019 BCSC 1860, Yukon Big Game Outfitters Ltd. v. Yukon (Government), 2021 YKSC 51.

[29] Bell Bros. Transport Ltd. v. Cummins Diesel Power Ltd., [1962] A.J. No. 80, 35 D.L.R. (2d) 775.

[30] R. v. Trang, 2002 ABQB 990 at paragraph 62.

[31] See Barry v. Davis, 2021 BCSC 546 at paragraph 66 where the affidavit included evidence of what an opposing party told them at trial and Laurentide Mortgage Corp. v. J.D. Bond Construction Group Ltd., 32 Alta. L.R. (2d) 206 at paragraph 75 where the court specifically dissuaded legal staff from including contested facts.

[32] College of Dental Surgeons of B.C. v. Cleland, [1968] B.C.J. No. 8, 66 W.W.R. 499 at paragraph 4 (B.C.C.A.).

[33] Mensour v. Lemington (Municipality), 2012 ONSC 3525 at paragraphs 41-42.

[34] Dlouhy, supra at paragraph 15.

[35] Barefoot v. Paranet Services Inc., [2000] N.S.J. No. 37 at paragraph 15 (N.S.S.C.), appeal dismissed 2000 NSCA 75.

[36] Extra Gift Exchange Inc. v. Chung, 2006 BCSC 526 at paragraph 22.

[37] R. v. Mapara, 2005 SCC 23.

[38] Albert v. Politano, 2013 BCCA 194 at paragraphs 19 and 22.

[39] Ferreira v. Cardenas, 2014 ONSC 7119 at paragraphs 14-17.

[40] See Sharda v. Moran, 2016 BCSC 538, where the Court was critical of a legal assistant who simply appended numerous pieces of correspondence between counsel. The application and application failed to explain the relevance of that correspondence and to properly explain it.