What might&#39;ve spurred the demand of repeating facts in the Plaintiff&#39;s Claim, instead of referencing their paragraphs?
<p><sub>Source: <a href="https://store.lexisnexis.ca/en/categories/shop-by-jurisdiction/ontario-10/ontario-small-claims-court-a-practical-guide-skusku-cad-00935/details" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Ontario Small Claims Court - A Practical Guide</em></a> (2011). p. 166 Bottom.</sub></p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>§8.34</strong> It is essential for the drawer of the affidavit (who might be the plaintiff 
  himself or his representative) to understand that the affidavit must contain 
  facts to substantiate the plaintiff's entitlement to damages. That means that 
  the facts relating to the issue of damages that were set out in the Plaintiff's 
  Claim must be <em>repeated</em> in the affidavit. So many drawers of the affidavit 
  make express reference to the Plaintiff's Claim without restating the facts 
  contained in that document or they simply attach to the affidavit a copy of 
  the Plaintiff"s Claim. Neither method is correct. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>This demand feels wasteful (of attention and time, in rereading the same facts)? What's wrong with mandating litigants only to reference paragraph numbers for the facts in the Plaintiff's Claim? </p>

<p>This is a matter of tradition and common practice. The reputed purpose is to make sure that all of the facts sworn to are really in front of the person swearing to them and not just swapped out by changes in the claim after the document is sworn to, but it is a bit pedantic. Often legal requirements are like that.</p>

ontario litigation