Yes No Share to Facebook
Demanding Particulars: Requests for Additional Details
Question: When is it appropriate to demand particulars in a Small Claims Court case in Canada?
Answer: Demanding particulars in a Small Claims Court case is appropriate when the initial pleadings lack clarity or sufficient detail to enable the opposing party to understand the allegations and prepare a defence. The demand is necessary to ensure fairness in the legal process and is permitted under Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194 if the Rules of the Small Claims Court do not adequately cover the matter. For personalized assistance with your case, consider consulting legal professionals who can guide you through the complexities of your lawsuit.
Understanding When Demanding Particulars Is Appropriate and Permissible within Small Claims Court Cases
To help ensure fairness and a just outcome to a lawsuit, including a lawsuit within the Small Claims Court, the allegations within the Plaintiff's Claim (Form 7A) document as stated by the Plaintiff as well as the allegations within the Defence (Form 9A) document as stated by the Defendant, must be capable of a reasonable understanding. The requirement of understandable documents, known as pleadings, helps enable that the parties to the litigation can appreciate what the case is about and can respond appropriately. If pleading documents are insufficiently detailed, a Demand For Particulars may be served as a request for more details.
The Law
The precise Rules requiring that the details within a lawsuit pleading document applicable to a Small Claims Court case are prescribed by the Rules of the Small Claims Court, O. Reg. 258/98 as per Rule 7.01(2) for a Plaintiff's Claim (Form 7A) document and per Rule 9.02(1) for a Defence (Form 9A) document, whereas such Rules specifically state:
7.01 (2) The following requirements apply to the claim:
1. It shall contain the following information, in concise and non-technical language:
i. The full names of the parties to the proceeding and, if relevant, the capacity in which they sue or are sued.
ii. The nature of the claim, with reasonable certainty and detail, including the date, place and nature of the occurrences on which the claim is based.
iii. The amount of the claim and the relief requested.
iv. If the plaintiff is self-represented, the plaintiff’s address, telephone number and email address (if any).
iv.i If the plaintiff is represented by a representative, the representative’s name, address, telephone number, email address (if any) and Law Society of Ontario registration number (if any).
v. The address where the plaintiff believes the defendant may be served.
2. If the plaintiff’s claim is based in whole or in part on a document, a copy of the document shall be attached to each copy of the claim, unless it is unavailable, in which case the claim shall state the reason why the document is not attached.
9.02 (1) The following requirements apply to the defence:
1. It shall contain the following information:
i. The reasons why the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s claim, expressed in concise non-technical language with a reasonable amount of detail.
ii. If the defendant is self-represented, the defendant’s name, address, telephone number and email address (if any).
iii. If the defendant is represented by a representative, the representative’s name, address, telephone number, and email address (if any) and Law Society of Ontario registration number (if any).
2. If the defence is based in whole or in part on a document, a copy of the document shall be attached to each copy of the defence, unless it is unavailable, in which case the defence shall state the reason why the document is not attached.
While the Rules of the Small Claims Court prescribe the extent of detail that is required within a pleading document, the Rules of the Small Claims Court oddly lack rules about how to remedy a situation where a pleading document lacks the required level of detail. Accordingly, in such a situation, reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, as the Rules that apply to legal cases beyond the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court becomes necessary and permitted per Rule 1.03(2) which says:
Matters Not Covered in Rules
1.03 (2) If these rules do not cover a matter adequately, the court may give directions and make any order that is just, and the practice shall be decided by analogy to these rules, by reference to the Courts of Justice Act and the Act governing the action and, if the court considers it appropriate, by reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
As the Rules of the Small Claims Court lack a rule about what to do if a pleading document within a Small Claims Court lawsuit is insufficiently detailed, reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure may become necessary. Upon review of the Rules of civil Procedure, Rule 25.10 shows that a party to a legal proceeding may demand particulars, meaning issue a request for additional details, from the party whose pleading document was insufficiently detailed. Rule 25.10 specifically states:
25.10 Where a party demands particulars of an allegation in the pleading of an opposite party, and the opposite party fails to supply them within seven days, the court may order particulars to be delivered within a specified time.
Cases speaking to the opportunity for a litigant in Small Claims Court to demand adequate particulars include Bechaalani v. Hostar Realty Ltd., 2004 CanLII 24997, wherein the Divisional Court, while hearing argument that a pleading within a Small Claims Court case failed to provide adequate particulars, stated at paragraph 24 that, "... a Demand for Particulars could have been served ...". Other Small Claims Court cases involving inadequate particulars concerns include Cecatina General Contractors Ltd. v. Arbour, [1980] O.J. No. 331, Nelson v Bray, 2007 CanLII 86745, and Hallmark Insurance Brokers Ltd. v. Baron, SC-13-00099311 (unreported).
Lastly, it is notable that where a party fails to respond, or fails to respond adequately, to a Demand For Particulars, the party demanding the particulars may bring a Motion Hearing seeking an Order that the particulars be provided; however, the court may dismiss the Motion Hearing where the court deems that the particulars requested are unnecessary. The genuine requirement of particulars was addressed within the case of GASP Business Services Inc. v. ARCA Design Inc., 2020 ONSC 5612, wherein it was said:
[3] Each pleading must to contain a concise statement of the materials facts on which the party relies for its claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts will be proven (Rule 25.06(1)). A party is required to plead any matter on which the party intends to rely to defeat the claim of the opposite party and which if not specifically pleaded, might take the opposite party by surprise or raise an issue that has not been raised in the opposite party’s pleading (Rule 25.07(4)). Lastly, particulars are only ordered when they are necessary to enable a party to plead (Obonsawin v. Canada 2001 CarswellOnt 306 at paragraph 33, considering Rule 25.10).
Interestingly, in some circumstances a Plaintiff may be without full particulars of the alleged wrongdoing by the Defendant. In such a circumstance, while a Defendant may demand particulars (or even seek to strike the claim), so long as the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient allegations as necessary to make out the cause of action, then the court should be reluctant to require further pleadings from the Plaintiff. This is especially so where the particulars are known to the Defendant. Furthermore, if the Defendant is able to adequately prepare a Defence pleading without additional particulars, the court should refuse to require further particulars from the Plaintiff. These principles were stated within the cases of, among others, NO. 1 Collision Repair & Painting (1982) Ltd. v. Insurance Corp. of B.C., 1994 CanLII 1613, as well as, Gore Mutual Insurance Company v. Dr. George Carlin, et al, 2015 ONSC 4922, wherein each it was said:
In a case where, as here, the plaintiff has little or no knowledge, or means of knowledge, of facts in dispute, while the facts are generally known to the defendants, or they have the means of knowledge, the court should be most reluctant to make an order, the effect of which, would prevent the plaintiff from proceeding. This is particularly so, where some particulars have been given which show some basis for the plaintiff's general allegations, and some evidence has been adduced, "even if very little", which requires the defendants to answer. See Cominco Ltd. v. Westinghouse Can. Ltd. et al (1978), 1978 CanLII 234 (BC SC), 6 B.C.L.R. 25, a decision of Bouck, J., and Proconic Electronics Limited v. Wong et al (1985), 1985 CanLII 253 (BC SC), 67 B.C.L.R. 237, a decision of Southin, J. as she then was.
In Proconic Southin, J. had this to say, seemingly in stating a minimal test to be met in answering the assertion that the plaintiff was on "a fishing expedition", at page 241:
I think a plaintiff who makes serious allegations of misconduct against someone who stands in a fiduciary relationship to him and who says he cannot give any particulars of those allegations must adduce some evidence even if very little in order to require a defendant to answer. Defendants are not to be called upon to answer a bald allegation of breach of fiduciary duty of which there is no evidence and of which no particulars are given.
(My emphasis)
Clearly the statement is not limited to a case of fiduciary relationship, and should apply to any allegation of misconduct, such as conspiracy.
[23] In the case of Blatt Holdings Ltd. v. Traders General Insurance Co., 2001 CanLII 62756 (ON SC), [2001] O.J. No. 949, (Plaintiff’s Factum and Book of Authorities at Tab 4), Cumming J stated at paragraph 31 as follows:
31. Particulars for pleading will only be ordered if first, they are not within the knowledge of the party demanding them, and second, they are necessary to enable the other party to plead. Physicians Services Inc. v. Cass, 1971 CanLII 359 (ON CA), [1971] 2 O.R. 626 (Ont. C.A.) per Gale C.J.O. at 627; Obonsawin (c.o.b. Native Leasing Services) v. Canada (February 6, 2001), Epstein J. (Ont. S.C.J.) at para. 33.
Conclusion
The Rules of the Small Claims Court require that pleading documents, being the primary documents containing allegations, or denials, within a lawsuit, are drafted in a clear and concise manner with a reasonable degree of particularity; however, the Rules of Small Claims Court lack a rule for what happens if pleading documents fail to meet this requirement. Accordingly, in such circumstances, reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure is required.