Last Updated: August 23 2026
Do I need consent or leave of the court to amend my Small Claims Court Defence to withdraw a previously admitted fact?
In Ontario Small Claims Court, if your amended Defence would withdraw a prior admission of uncontentious facts, you generally need consent from the other party and/or leave of the court before filing the change; the Small Claims Court rules permit amendments generally, but they do not clearly address withdrawal of admissions, so courts apply the Rules of Civil Procedure and case law such as 1760357 Ontario Limited v 1789316 Ontario Limited, 2013 CanLII 54055. Under R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rule 51.05, an admission in a pleading may be withdrawn only “on consent or with leave of the court,” and courts have held the leave requirement applies in Small Claims Court as well. For bilingual English, français paralegal drafting and review of amended pleadings (including withdrawal of admissions) tailored to your Ontario matter, contact Thamar Bilingual Legal Services Ontario at (647) 818-7974.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Consent or Leave of Court Is Required to Withdraw a Previously Admitted Fact
As the Defendant is preparing to respond to a lawsuit by drafting a document known as a Defence, which is the document that answers the allegations within the document known as a Plaintiff's Claim, great care is required to ensure that alleged facts are admitted only when such facts are uncontentious whereas after facts are admitted an amendment may be difficult.
Note: Please contact Thamar Bilingual Legal Services Ontario by phone at: (647) 818-7974 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
Generally, the Rules of the Small Claims Court, O. Reg. 258/98, permit a litigant to amend a pleading up until thirty (30) days prior to the original date scheduled for Trial; however, the Rules of the Small Claims Court are silent, meaning lacking details, about the amendment of a Defence pleading in a manner that withdraws a previously admitted factual allegation. Accordingly, reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, and case law, including the case of 1760357 Ontario Limited v 1789316 Ontario Limited, 2013 CanLII 54055 provide guidance. Specifically, the Rules of the Small Claims Court, the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the 1760357 Ontario case, each respectively state:
Right to Amend
12.01 (1) A plaintiff’s or defendant’s claim and a defence to a plaintiff’s or defendant’s claim may be amended by filing with the clerk a copy that is marked “Amended”, in which any additions are underlined and any other changes are identified.
...
Time
(3) Filing and service of the amended document shall take place at least 30 days before the originally scheduled trial date, unless,
(a) the court, on motion, allows a shorter notice period; or
(b) a clerk’s order permitting the amendment is obtained under subrule 11.2.01 (1).
Matters Not Covered in Rules
1.03 (2) If these rules do not cover a matter adequately, the court may give directions and make any order that is just, and the practice shall be decided by analogy to these rules, by reference to the Courts of Justice Act and the Act governing the action and, if the court considers it appropriate, by reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Withdrawal of Admission
51.05 An admission made in response to a request to admit, a deemed admission under rule 51.03 or an admission in a pleading may be withdrawn on consent or with leave of the court.
6. In this case I saw no difficulty in allowing the defence to claim the unpleaded set-off for rent for February 2011. However the defendant sought an amendment to allege that the amount of the security deposit was less than it had specifically admitted in its pleading. That raised the question whether in the Small Claims Court an amendment which withdraws an admission requires leave of the court.
7. I am aware of no appellate authority which addresses that question. My colleague Deputy Judge Dickinson held that leave is required, in Kinka Transport Inc. v. Rideway Transport Inc., [2012] O.J. No. 4081 (Sm. Cl. Ct.), at para. 60. With respect, I agree.
8. In Antipas v. Coroneos (1988), 26 C.P.C. (2d) 63 (Ont. H.C.J.), Saunders J. reviewed the authorities dealing with withdrawal of admissions, in light of the new Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, and particularly the liberal and purposive interpretive principle set out in rule 1.04(1) of those rules. His Lordship observed that the modern trend had been “towards a more liberal view on the withdrawal of an admission.” The party seeking leave to amend a pleading by withdrawing an admission was required to satisfy the court that (1) the proposed amendment raises a triable issue; (2) the admission was inadvertent or resulted from wrong instructions; and (3) the withdrawal will not result in any prejudice that could not be compensated in costs.
9. Antipas v. Coroneos, supra, was specifically approved in Szelazek Investments Ltd. v. Orzech (1996), 44 C.P.C. (4th) 102 (Ont. C.A.). I see no good reason why the requirement for leave should not apply in Small Claims Court.
As detailed above, as per the Rules of the Small Claims Court and the Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the 1760357 Ontario case, a Defendant must obtain the permission of the Plaintiff, formally referred to as Consent, among other parties if any, or the Defendant must obtain permission from the Court, formally referred to as Leave, when the Defendant is amending a Defence pleading in such a way as to withdraw a previously admitted fact. This requirement, per the 1760357 Ontario case, applies even in matters of the Small Claims Court.
Conclusion
The Rules of the Small Claims Court lack instruction or guidance regarding amendments to a Defence pleading in such a way that admissions of previous factual allegations are withdrawn; and accordingly, reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure as well as case law is necessary and reveals that Consent of the opposing party or Leave of the court is required prior to withdrawing a prior admission.
NOTE: A considerable amount of online searches using terms like “lawyers in my area” or “top lawyer in” frequently indicate a desire for prompt and competent legal assistance, rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that manages lawyers and possess the authority to advocate for clients in specific litigation contexts. Skills in advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedures are foundational to that position. Thamar Bilingual Legal Services Ontario provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic alignment, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and beneficial outcomes for clients.
