Pleadings v Evidence: Walking the Tight Rope

Written by Daniel Standing LL.B., Content Editor, First Reference Inc.

It’s a basic principle that a party needs to know the case being alleged against it to fairly respond to it. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered a decision in 2024 ONSC 2948 where an employment relationship went bad, resulting in a lawsuit. The employer cried foul over the information it received in response to its demand for particulars and brought a motion asking the court to order them. The court disagreed, shedding light on the extent of information a respondent is entitled to receive before examination for discovery.

Background

The civil action underpinning the dispute was brought by the founder and operator of a company who alleged a former employee failed to repay a loan. In response, the former employee filed a statement of defence and counterclaim, alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment, violations of her human rights and intentional infliction of mental suffering during her employment. These allegations point to a broader conflict involving both financial and personal grievances stemming from their professional relationship.

The court gave an overview of the legal framework around particulars of pleadings and the key role they play in the litigation process. Particulars clarify allegations, define issues and prevent surprises at trial, allowing parties to prepare adequately. According to Rule 25.10, the court may order particulars if they are crucial for the opposing party to frame a response and are not within the demanding party’s knowledge.

The problem sometimes arises when one side wants more particulars than they are entitled to or should require. Jurisprudence shows that the level of detail required does not extend to “the granular level of minutiae” but should provide enough clarity and specificity to meet legal standards. When allegations of misconduct or malice are made, full particulars are required.

The judge raised a key distinction between pleadings and evidence. Pleadings are formal written statements submitted by the parties in a lawsuit, outlining their claims, defenses and the issues in dispute. They set the stage for the litigation by providing a structured framework of the parties’ positions and ensuring that both sides understand the core issues to be addressed. Evidence, on the other hand, consists of the information and material presented during the trial to prove or disprove the claims made in the pleadings. While pleadings require sufficient detail to inform the opposing party of the case they must answer, they should not delve into the level of detail expected of evidence; that is gained through answers to questions posed to a witness during examination for discovery. This means that while pleadings should outline the factual basis of the claims and defenses, the specific details and substantiation of these facts are reserved for the evidentiary phase of the trial. This distinction ensures that pleadings provide a clear and fair summary of the case without overburdening them with the exhaustive details that will be examined through evidence during the trial.

The judge’s decision

The judge denied the motion, determining the request for further particulars was improper due to its excessive specificity and the nature of the demands. She reasoned that the statement of defence and counterclaim was already detailed enough, spanning 18 pages and 105 paragraphs, clearly outlining the former employee’s position. The judge cited specific examples to illustrate the excessive nature of the demands. For instance, demand 17 asked for minute details about how, where and when the former employee’s off-duty conduct was monitored via GPS devices. The judge said it was ridiculous for the moving party to claim ignorance about whether he installed GPS devices, as this information should be within his knowledge. Furthermore, the judge explained that providing more particulars at that stage would delve into evidentiary details, which is inappropriate for pleadings.

Key takeaway

Employers who bring lawsuits should understand how important this matter is. Through their legal counsel they participate in ensuring that pleadings are clear and detailed without delving into exhaustive specifics, reserving such details for the evidentiary phase of the litigation process. So long as allegations are adequately clarified to define the issues and prevent surprises, they are probably sufficient. Requests for further particulars should only be made when necessary and when the facts are not already within the requesting party’s knowledge. When disputes like this occur, courts will assess pleadings as a whole, not in isolated sentences, so seeking further granular details on a line-by-line basis is not likely to impress the court.

Source: Certified Equipment Sales v Iuorio, 2024 ONSC 2948

Comments are closed.