Requests to admit (“RTAs”) are a useful but often overlooked instrument in a litigator’s toolbox. Used to narrow the issues in dispute and to reduce the time and expense associated with proving uncontested facts or establishing the authenticity of documents, RTAs can also be used to secure admissions from opposing parties which, once made, can secure the release of a party from ongoing litigation.[1]
An RTA can limit areas of disagreement in advance of trial and recent jurisprudence emphasizes that a party served with a proper RTA must respond thoughtfully. Denying the truth of every fact until closer to trial undermines the objectives of an already strained judicial system and hampers the parties from securing the most expeditious and least expensive determination of a dispute on its merits.
However, with the proliferation of images that are generated and/or altered by artificial intelligence, one is left questioning whether the “authenticity” of a document can ever be admitted absent guidance from an expert.
The Basics
Requests to Admit are governed by Rule 51 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.[2] Under the Rules, a party may serve an RTA on any other party requesting admissions as to the truth of facts or the authenticity of documents at any time.[3] A responding party must deliver its response within 20 days. Failure to respond results in a deemed admission of the truth of the facts and/or the authenticity of the documents identified in the request.[4]
The Permitted Scope of an RTA
Despite their utility, their scope is limited to admissions respecting the truth of facts or the authenticity of documents. RTAs are not a panacea. RTAs foster the timely and efficient adjudication of a matter on its merits. However, as Justice Morgan cautioned, they are not intended to secure deemed admissions of matters that are very much disputed or contradicted by documentary evidence. Further, RTAs are not a means by which a party can avoid addressing the merits.[5]
Rule 51.03 restricts admissions to the “truth of a fact or the authenticity of a document”. Yet, parties routinely seek admissions that go beyond the facts. The value of seeking such admissions is questionable. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held: “the court is not bound to give effect to an admission of law, or of mixed fact and law, if in all the circumstances the interests of justice dictate that the issue should be determined at a trial rather than by way of admission.”[6]
As noted previously, RTAs can also be used to secure admissions with respect to the authenticity of a document. Under Rule 51.01, an admission as to a document’s authenticity includes that: (a) a document that is said to be an original was printed, written, signed or executed as it purports to have been; (b) a document that is said to be a copy is a true copy of the original; and (c) where the document is a copy of a letter, telegram or telecommunication, the original was sent as it purports to have been sent and received by the person to whom it is addressed. The court has observed: “In other words, the admission of authenticity obviates the need to prove the document through witnesses. If one admits authenticity, one admits all of (a), (b) and (c) as they pertain to the specific document.”[7]
But counsel must always recall that admissions of “authenticity” do not equate to concessions of “admissibility”. A party may admit that a document is authentic and still challenge its admissibility on other grounds and the use to which the document may be put. The trial judge remains the gatekeeper with respect to the admission of evidence into the court record.
Recent Jurisprudential Consideration
The failure to respond meaningfully to an RTA was recently addressed in the context of a personal injury matter.[8] In advance of a scheduled 20-day jury trial, the plaintiff served a “comprehensive request to admit”. The defendant responded by denying every fact in the RTA. At a trial management conference, defence counsel informed the court that he had not personally reviewed the RTA and that his standard directions to his staff were to “deny everything in a request to admit until closer to trial”.
Justice L Stewart criticized defence counsel and described a refusal to engage in the RTA process until closer to trial as “an outdated approach to litigation in Ontario”. Her Honour noted that such conduct “only drives up the costs for all parties and keeps an unnecessary number of court days on hold” and that counsel have an obligation to represent their clients in a manner that does not cause systemic harm to the larger judicial system.
RTAs in a World of AI Enhanced / Generated Media
Traditionally, admitting the authenticity of a document required minimal consideration. Unless there was reason to believe that the document produced was not a genuine copy of the original, then admitting “authenticity” was relatively straightforward and avoided the need to prove the original copy in court.
But the proliferation of publicly accessible tools has made it easy for anyone to produce AI-generated digital media (e.g., videos, images, audio). The technology has reached “the point where the distinctions are subtle and often exceed normal human perception, requiring an expert to differentiate AI-generated from authentic content.”[9]
Today’s technological climate may warrant a different response to an RTA seeking an admission of authenticity in respect of digital media. One can envision a motor vehicle collision captured on dashcam or CCTV cameras recording a person falling inside a store. Such videos may appear genuine but how can counsel be certain? As Maura Grossman and Hon. Paul Grimm observed: “That may require access to the original hardware or media on which the evidence was created or maintained or the native version of the evidence, including its metadata. This may be the only way of determining the provenance of the evidence.”[10]
Even if it is a “true copy of the original”, does admitting authenticity also mean that the responding party is admitting that the digital media accurately depicts the events which it purports and would doing so mean that the media is being admitted for the truth of its contents?
Given the limited options of (i) admitting authenticity, (ii) denying authenticity, and (iii) refusing to admit authenticity with an accompanying reason, the appropriate response to an RTA in such circumstances is for the responding party to refuse to admit the authenticity of the digital media on the basis that its provenance is unknown but to further state that the responding party has no knowledge or belief to indicate that the digital media is AI-generated evidence. This balanced response puts the other party on notice that they must have the video entered as evidence using traditional rules but without having to respond to an argument that implicates the authenticity of the video itself (i.e., a “deepfake”).
The Future of Requests to Admit
Although the final form and timing of the revised Rules of Civil Procedure remains uncertain, the Final Policy Report submitted by the Civil Rules Review Working Group suggests that the current permissive approach to RTAs be replaced (or perhaps merely supplemented) with a more coordinated approach by which the parties are required to exchange chronologies. In making its recommendations, the CRR Working Group observed that the utility of the current process is often undermined by the inclusion of argument, opinion, hyperbole and adjectives.[11]
Accordingly, the CRR Working Group made the following proposals:
- Chronologies: Parties are to exchange chronologies of key facts before the trial management conference. For each fact, the chronology will include a relevant date, a brief description of the fact in neutral terms and a reference to the evidence supporting the document. Upon receipt of a chronology, the opposing party will be required to indicate whether they admit, deny or have no knowledge of each fact. At the trial management conference, the court may order the parties to prepare an agreed chronology containing the facts to which the parties agree and which will be deemed admitted at trial.[12]
- Joint Books of Documents: Rather than requesting parties admit the authenticity of a document through the current RTA procedure, parties will work together to create two Joint Books of Documents. The first will contain all documents which the parties agree are authentic and admissible (and whether the documents are admissible for the truth of their contents). The second will contain all documents to which an objection has been raised with respect to authenticity and admissibility along with the basis for the objection.[13]
To its credit, the CRR Working Group questioned whether the time and cost of the new chronology process will outweigh its utility at trial and has recommended that the process be reviewed after a period of use.[14] The proposals, however, do not include a mechanism to address when and how disputes to the authenticity of documents are to be resolved. As such, it is presumed that all such disputes will be left to trial.
Conclusion
Requests to admit are an efficient process for narrowing the issues that require adjudication. They reduce unnecessary proof at trial and encourage parties to engage meaningfully with the evidence before trial. Yet the rapid evolution of generative AI is complicating a once routine step in litigation. Counsel may no longer be able to assume that an image or video “speaks for itself” and concessions of authenticity may require consideration of the possibility of alteration or complete fabrication.
The RTA process must evolve to address new technology. Refusals to admit authenticity due to the limits of human perception may become the norm for digital media. However, parties should be discouraged from denying authenticity merely because digital media could be a deepfake unless they intend to make such an argument in earnest. To do otherwise will increase the number of experts and the cost of trial. Meanwhile, the proposed shift toward chronologies and joint document books is a move towards earlier issue‑narrowing and structured cooperation. Whether the new Rules will expressly address AI generated evidence remains to be seen.
Stephen N. Libin is a partner at Branch MacMaster LLP in Toronto. He thanks his associate Xi (Cici) Wen for her research and contributions to this article.
[1] For example, a plaintiff who is injured in a slip-and-fall on a municipal sidewalk may allege that the neighbouring property owner is liable for the condition of the sidewalk. However, an admission from the plaintiff that she has no evidence that conditions or activities on the property flowed off to the sidewalk ought to secure a release from the action. Similarly, the owner of a leased commercial property may be able to secure admissions from a tenant with respect to care and control of the interior of the premises sufficient to demonstrate that the owner is not an “occupier” under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.
[2] Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”).
[3] Rule 51.02.
[4] Rule 51.03.
[5] Furgiuele v Don Casselman Global Enterprises, 2013 ONSC 7032, paras 40, 44.
[6] Serra v Serra, 2009 ONCA 105, para 115.
[7] Marcos Limited Building Design Consultants v Lad, 2016 ONSC 7071, para 43.
[8] Hicken v Abbot Chiropractic and Health Care, 2026 ONSC 1244.
[9] Maura Grossman, Paul Grimm, “Judicial Approaches to Acknowledged and Unacknowledged AI-Generated Evidence” (2025) 26:2 Colum Sci & Tech L Rev 110, 115. This article is highly recommended for a detailed consideration of the development of generative AI, deepfakes and the impact on the resolution of cases in courts.
[10] Ibid., 152.
[11] Civil Rules Review Working Group, Final Policy Report (Toronto: Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 15 December 2025), p 170.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid., pp 171-172.
[14] Ibid., p 171.
