The defendants in a franchise dispute brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to provide further particulars and to strike numerous paragraphs of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim.
The plaintiff, a former franchisee of a dog daycare business, alleged that the defendants conspired to manufacture grounds to terminate the franchise agreement and take over the location.
The Master dismissed the majority of the defendants' demands for particulars, finding they improperly sought evidence rather than material facts required for pleading.
The Master also declined to strike most of the challenged paragraphs, though a few specific paragraphs and inflammatory words were struck with leave to amend.