An affidavit sworn through an interpreter: what Ontario's rule adds

An affidavit written in English can be sworn in Ontario by someone who does not read English, and by someone who cannot read at all. Two subrules of the Rules of Civil Procedure deal with exactly these cases: rule 4.06 (8) for a deponent who does not understand the language of the affidavit, and rule 4.06 (7) for one who is illiterate or blind. Neither one turns the person away. Each one changes what the commissioner writes in the jurat, the block at the end where the commissioner certifies when and where the affidavit was sworn.

Much of what comes up in a search on this subject is American. A US notary association, for example, tells its members to decline when they cannot speak to the signer directly and not to rely on an interpreter. That is state notary law in the United States. Ontario's court rules say the opposite and set out how the interpreter is used.

Two situations, two different certificates

The two subrules are often run together, but they certify different things. Rule 4.06 (8) is for a deponent who does not understand the language the affidavit is written in. Rule 4.06 (7) is for a deponent who is illiterate or blind.

	Language, r. 4.06 (8)	Reading, r. 4.06 (7)
When it applies	It appears to the person taking the affidavit that the deponent does not understand the language used in it	It appears to the person taking the affidavit that the deponent is illiterate or blind
The text	A named interpreter, in the commissioner's presence	The affidavit is read to the deponent in the commissioner's presence
Oath first	The interpreter swears or affirms before the commissioner to interpret the affidavit correctly	None is described by the rule
Jurat	That the affidavit was interpreted to the deponent by that interpreter, who took that oath or affirmation	That it was read to the deponent, that the deponent appeared to understand it, and that the deponent signed or placed a mark in the commissioner's presence
Signature	The deponent signs as usual	A signature or a mark

Both subrules start with the words "Where it appears to a person taking an affidavit". The judgment belongs to the commissioner at the desk. A deponent who reads English slowly but understands the text is not the case the rule describes; a deponent who nods along to words they cannot follow is.

What happens at the desk, in order

The Ministry of the Attorney General publishes a guide for newly appointed commissioners in Ontario. Read together with rule 4.06 (8), it gives this sequence:

1. The commissioner confirms who the deponent is. The guide puts the duty plainly: the commissioner makes sure the signature is genuine, and the deponent provides proof of identity.
2. The commissioner administers an oath or affirmation to the interpreter. In the guide's wording, the interpreter confirms that they understand both the interpreted language and English and will interpret to the best of their skill.
3. The interpreter interprets the affidavit to the deponent, in the commissioner's presence.
4. The commissioner asks the deponent what kind of oath or affirmation binds their conscience, and administers it through the interpreter.
5. The deponent signs in front of the commissioner.
6. The commissioner completes the jurat, naming the interpreter and certifying the interpretation as the subrule requires.

The guide gives a sample jurat for the ordinary case and for remote commissioning, but no ready-made wording for an interpreted affidavit. What has to appear is set by the subrule itself. Whether a person takes an oath or an affirmation does not change its weight, which is the subject of the article on oaths and affirmations.

The standard depends on where the affidavit is going

Rule 4.06 is part of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern the Superior Court of Justice. Other Ontario courts and federal tribunals have their own rules, and they are not identical.

Where the affidavit is used	What the rules or the form say about interpretation
Superior Court of Justice, civil proceedings	Rule 4.06 (8): a named interpreter, sworn or affirmed before the person taking the affidavit, and a certificate in the jurat
Small Claims Court	The Small Claims Court Rules have no subrule of their own on this. Rule 1.03.1 says that where the rules do not cover a matter adequately, the practice is decided by analogy and, if the court considers it appropriate, by reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure
Family court under the Family Law Rules	The same approach in rule 1 (7) of the Family Law Rules: analogy, the Courts of Justice Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure where the court considers it appropriate
Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division	The RAD affidavit form, dated January 2026, requires oral translation by a competent and independent interpreter who has taken an oath, and a signed interpreter's declaration on the form

The IRB's form is the strictest of these. Its interpreter's declaration has the interpreter state that they interpreted the form from English into a named language, that they are proficient in both, that they communicated effectively with the deponent, and that the deponent assured them it was understood. The word "independent" appears on the IRB form. The Ontario rule and the commissioner guide do not use it, and they do not say who may or may not act as the interpreter.

The same IRB form also repeats the reading rule: where the deponent is blind or illiterate, the person before whom it is sworn certifies that it was read to the deponent and that the deponent appeared to understand it.

The interpreter at the swearing is not the court interpreter

Ontario's page on getting a court interpreter is about hearings, not about swearing documents. It says the Ministry provides interpretation in any language required in criminal and child protection matters. In civil, family and Small Claims matters, interpretation in any language is available to a litigant who qualifies for a fee waiver, and French interpretation is provided in all of them.

None of that covers the moment an affidavit is sworn before a commissioner, which happens outside the courtroom and usually before the hearing date is even set. The interpreter named in the jurat is the person who was physically in the room for the swearing.

A document written in another language

Everything above concerns an affidavit written in English for a deponent who does not read English. A different question arises when the paper itself is in another language and has to be used in Ontario: that is a translation, sworn by the translator in an affidavit of its own. How that works, and which part of it is notarial, is set out on the certified translations page.

Who is in the room for an interpreted affidavit

Taken from rule 4.06 and the commissioner guide, a swearing of this kind involves:

• the deponent, in person, with identification, because the guide requires proof of identity and physical presence for an in-person swearing;
• the interpreter, in person, whose full name goes into the jurat;
• the affidavit, complete and unsigned, with any exhibits it refers to;
• for an IRB affidavit, the interpreter's declaration on the form itself, left blank until the interpretation is done.

Court affidavits are sworn at this office as described on the affidavits page, and a time that suits both the deponent and the interpreter can be arranged through the booking page. Whether a court or tribunal accepts a particular affidavit is decided by that court or tribunal.