Yes No Share to Facebook
Adverse Inference: Negative Presumptions for Failing to Present Evidence
Question: What is the principle of adverse inference in Canadian law, and when does it apply?
Answer: The principle of adverse inference in Canadian law arises when a litigant fails to provide evidence or testimony reasonably expected from them. In such cases, the court may presume the evidence or testimony was unfavourable, as noted in Tiwari v. Chevalier, 2022 ONSC 3071. This inference is discretionary, meaning the court assesses if it is justified based on the case-specific circumstances and whether there was a legitimate reason for the omission, as explained in Parris v. Laidley, 2012 ONCA 755. For more detailed legal insights tailored to your needs, get in touch with Debly Law and take charge of your legal rights.
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 choice to apply an adverse inference is discretion as was explained within the Court of Appeal case of Parris v. Laidley, 2012 ONCA 755, wherein it was said:
[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 queries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically signify a desire for prompt and proficient legal assistance instead of a specific professional designation. In Ontario, the same Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, who are empowered to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Core competencies in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise are essential to this role. Debly Law provides legal representation within its licensed authority, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy geared towards achieving effective and favourable resolutions for clients.