SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 8271/12
DATE: 2013/04/15
RE: ROBERT CLAYTON SPARLING (Plaintiff)
- and -
MARY ANNE PATRICIA SPARLING, ROBERT LEE SPARLING, KAREN ANNE MAY, JOHN DAVID HORN and 2294293 ONTARIO INC. (Defendants)
BEFORE: JUSTICE L. C. LEITCH
COUNSEL:
S. Flaherty, for the Plaintiff
S. Drozd, for the Defendants, Robert Lee Sparling, Karen Anne May and 2294293 Ontario Inc.
No one appearing for the Defendants, Mary Anne Patricia Sparling and John David Horn
HEARD: March 19, 2013
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim) moves for an order requiring the defendants (plaintiffs by counterclaim) Robert Lee Sparling, Karen Anne May and 2294293 Ontario Inc. (the “responding parties”) to answer the demand for particulars delivered by the plaintiff.
[2] The plaintiff in his statement of claim issued September 25, 2012 seeks an order setting aside a transfer of his interest in property known municipally as 4245 Elgin Road, Mossley, Ontario. This property had been jointly owned by the plaintiff and his wife, the defendant Mary Anne Patricia Sparling.
[3] The statement of claim sets out that the defendant, Mary Anne Patricia Sparling, purportedly acting under a Power of Attorney, agreed to sell the property to 2294293 Ontario Inc., a corporation in which Mary Anne Patricia Sparling and the plaintiff’s grandson, Robert Lee Sparling and his spouse Karen Anne May, are the sole directors.
[4] In their statement of defence and counterclaim, the responding parties allege that they provided work and contributed to the property on the expressed commitment of both the plaintiff and Mary Anne Patricia Sparling that they would acquire an interest in the property. They also allege that the plaintiff had exhibited signs of dementia and loss of mental capacity some years prior to the contentious transfer of the property.
[5] The plaintiff deposes in his affidavit in support of this motion that he has no knowledge of the work, labour and money contributions allegedly supplied by the responding parties which they rely on in support of their allegations. The plaintiff further deposes in his affidavit that he has no knowledge of any such signs.
[6] The plaintiff has served a demand for particulars on the responding parties seeking the following:
Particulars of the labour and financial contribution made by Robert Lee Sparling and Karen Anne May for the maintenance, improvement and operation of 4245 Elgin Road, Mossley, Ontario, as referenced in paragraphs 2, 10 and 12 of the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim;
Particulars of the decisions made by the Plaintiff that were out of character for him and not always in his best financial interest, as referenced in para. 4 of the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim; and
Particulars of the signs exhibited by the Plaintiff of dementia and a loss of mental capacity, as referenced in para. 6 of the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.
[7] The purpose of particulars was outlined in Antonacci v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd., 2000 5496 (ON CA), [2000] O.J. No. 40 (C.A.) at para. 34 and 35 as follows:
- This court in International Nickel Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., [1962] O.W.N. 109 (Ont. C.A.) adopted the following statement in Mexican Northern Power co. v. Pearson (1913), 25 O.W.R. 422 (Ont. H.C.), at 425 on the function of particulars:
The function of particulars is to limit the generality of pleadings and thus to define the issues which have to be tried and as to which discovery must be given. Each party is entitled to know the case to be made against him at the trial and to have such particulars of his opponent’s case as will prevent him from being taken by surprise.
The purposes of particulars are also well summarized in Tse-Ching v. Wesbild HoldingsLtd. (1994), 98 B.C.L.R. (2d) 92 (B.C. S.C.) at 100:
to inform the other side of the nature of the case they have to meet;
to prevent the other side from being taken by surprise at trial;
to enable the other side to determine what evidence will be necessary and to prepare for trial;
to limit the generality of pleadings;
to limit and decide the issues to be tried and as to which discovery will be conducted;
to tie the hands of the party providing particulars.
[8] The plaintiff’s position is that the statement of defence and counterclaim contain vague allegations and bold assertions and the particulars he seeks are reasonable and necessary in order for the plaintiff to appropriately respond to such allegations and assertions.
[9] The plaintiff refers to the comment of Master McLeod in Ottawa (City) v. Cole and Associates Architects Inc., [2012] O.N.S. 3360 at para. 28 that a pleading should allow the responding party to plead intelligently and appropriately. The plaintiff asserts that particulars are required here to allow the plaintiff to so plead.
[10] On the other hand, the responding parties assert that the plaintiff is seeking evidence and pursuant to Rule 25.06 they are only required to plead concise facts. They note that the affidavit of documents is in the process of being completed and it will provide evidence of their labour and financial contribution. In addition, further information can be obtained on examinations for discovery.
[11] I note that the plaintiff has sworn in his affidavit that the particulars he seeks are not within his knowledge. I am satisfied that he requires the particulars he seeks in order to plead something more than a bold denial in general terms in response to the allegations of the responding parties.
[12] In particular, I am satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to have the particulars of the contributions Robert Sparling and Karen May made in consideration of the plaintiff’s alleged commitment to grant them an interest in the property. Further, I am satisfied the plaintiff is entitled to the other particulars he seeks. In my view, the plaintiff is unable to respond to these bold allegations in any way other than a broad general denial. Provision of the requested particulars is justified to fulfill the purpose of particulars outlined above. I am satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks and I grant an order requiring the responding parties to deliver the particulars demanded by the plaintiff.
[13] Given the result of this motion, my preliminary view, subject to reconsideration after submissions if any, is that the plaintiff is entitled to receive his costs on the motion. If necessary, the parties may make brief written submissions on costs within the next 30 days.
Justice L.C. Leitch
Justice L. C. Leitch
Date: ** April 15, 2012**