“Evidence is admissible if it is relevant, material and not otherwise the proper subject of an exclusionary rule.
“Relevance” is a matter of every day experience and common sense. Evidence that is not logically probative of the fact requiring proof (a fact in issue) is generally inadmissible. To be probative, the evidence must increase or decrease the probability of the truth of the asserted fact to which it is said to relate: see Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., 2011 ONSC 2504, 5 C.P.C. (7th) 112, at para. 110. Indeed, in order for evidence to be “relevant” it must have some tendency, as a matter of logic and human experience, to make the proposition for which it is advanced more likely than the proposition would be in the absence of that evidence: see R. v. J.-L.J., 2000 SCC 51, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600, at para. 47.
“Materiality” is a legal concept that directs an inquiry into whether the fact that the party seeks to prove bears any relation to the issues in the proceeding as determined by both: the applicable substantive and procedural law; and the issues raised by the pleadings.
An affidavit ought not to contain argument, speculation and irrelevant information. Legal arguments belong in a factum, not in affidavit form. Generally, legal submissions contained in an affidavit should be struck pursuant to r. 25.11 of the Rules, as scandalous, frivolous, or vexations: see Chopik v. Mitsubishi Paper Mills Ltd. (2002), 26 C.P.C. (5th) 104 (Ont. S.C.). Assertions in an affidavit that are irrelevant, argumentative or inserted for colour, or that constitute bare allegations may be struck out as scandalous: see George v. Harris, 2000 CarswellOnt 1714 (S.C.) at paras. 19-20.”
Enns v. Goertzen, 2019 ONSC 4233 (CanLII) at 65-68