0

Source: Ontario Small Claims Court - A Practical Guide (2011). p. 190 Bottom.

(d) Inflammatory Pleading

ยง9.15 A plaintiff or defendant in his pleading may make scandalous or in- flammatory references to the opponent. For instance, it does happen that either party will castigate his opponent as a "bare-faced liar". The motions judge will strike out the offending reference.

The quote above concerns Ontario law, but I intend my following question to concern advocacy in general (and not limited to a jurisdiction).

Adding 'bare-faced' to 'liar' does appear too affecting, bombastic, and pointlessly insulting, threatening. But when is it not an inflammatory pleading for a litigant to plead 'lying' or allege the other party as a 'liar'? Or should a litigant never use the morpheme 'lie' in a legal context? I ask not about judges because they have less to lose.

Community
  • 1

2 Answers2

1

The word "lie" is to be avoided in formal legal writing as a matter of style. Judges don't like it. "Misrepresentation" or "Fraudulent misrepresentation" which mean basically the same thing, are the usual substitutes.

Obviously, this doesn't apply when one is quoting something that someone else said for a relevant legal reason. For example, you could say in a pleading or motion: "On December 1, 2016, after we left the meeting, the defendant turned to me and said, "I lied to you.""

ohwilleke
  • 257,510
  • 16
  • 506
  • 896
0

I don't think there is any explicit reason to not use the word 'lie'. It may sound somewhat unprofessional, but It is all about the context. I think the text is just using the language as an example of harsh words that may be exchanged between opposite parties. They could have replaced 'bare-faced liar' with 'scumbag', and the passage would retain its meaning. It is really just a warning against either party making inflammatory statements.

AVA
  • 111
  • 2