Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-21-00667446-0000 Date: 2025-10-01
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Chantelle Pleasant v. J.P.
Before: Associate Justice Rappos
Counsel:
- Andrew MacDonald, for the Defendant
- Anna Matas and Erica Berry, for the Plaintiff
Heard: May 23, 2025 (in person)
Reasons for Decision
Overview
[1] In this action, the Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually abused by the Defendant.[^1] The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages for the intentional torts of sexual assault, battery, and intentional infliction of mental suffering.
[2] The Defendant served a Demand for Particulars where he asked for specifics as to the date, location and nature of each incident of abusive conduct alleged to have occurred in the claim. In the Plaintiff's Response to Demand for Particulars, she said that she had provided sufficient particulars to enable the Defendant to plead and that further particulars were a matter for discovery.
[3] Since that time, the Defendant served his Statement of Defence.
[4] The Defendant now brings a motion for an order requiring the Plaintiff to deliver greater particulars in response to his Demand. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff should be ordered to deliver further particulars so that he knows the case he will have to meet at trial, because the allegations in the claim are inconsistent with documents produced in the proceeding, and because the allegations relate to intentional torts.
[5] The Plaintiff argues that the motion should be dismissed as pleadings are closed, the Plaintiff stands by the answers she has provided to date, there is no evidence that the Defendant does not know the case he has to meet, and that he is demanding a "granular level of minutiae" that is more appropriately left for examinations for discovery.
[6] For the reasons that follow, the Defendant's motion is dismissed.
Legal Principles
[7] Subrule 25.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.
[8] Rule 25.10 provides that 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.
[9] Subrule 25.06(8) provides that where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.
[10] The following are key principles to be considered by the court on a motion for particulars:
(a) The function of particulars is to limit the generality of pleadings and 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.[^2]
(b) Particulars are ordered primarily to clarify a pleading sufficiently to enable the adverse party to frame his or her answer, and their secondary purpose is to prevent surprise at trial… Particulars have the effect of providing information that narrows the generality of pleadings… Particulars define the issues, enable preparation for trial, prevent surprise at trial and facilitate the hearing… A function of particulars to a statement of claim is to define the claim sufficiently to allow a defendant to respond intelligently to it.[^3]
(c) Particulars for pleadings are normally ordered only if (a) they are not within the knowledge of the party demanding them; and (b) they are necessary to enable the other party to plead his or her response;[^4]
(d) A motion for particulars usually will not be granted unless the moving party deposes that the particulars are not within his or her knowledge and that they are needed to plead; however, a supporting affidavit is not required if the allegations are so general and bald that it is clear that particulars of them are necessary;[^5] and
(e) The deponent in the supporting affidavit on a motion for particulars should be the moving party and not the solicitor representing that party; otherwise, little weight will be given to the affidavit.[^6]
[11] An order for particulars is in the discretion of the court, and that discretion is to be exercised in the circumstances of the case, to do justice to all parties.[^7]
[12] The court is to take a realistic and pragmatic approach when considering whether to order particulars recognizing that not every claim is capable of being pleaded with the same degree of particularity and that subsequent stages in the litigation process may also function to clarify and narrow the issues.[^8]
[13] There is no deadline prescribed in the Rules for a demand for particulars to be made. The only time prescribed is for a response to a demand for particulars. An order for particulars may be made before or after the close of pleadings.[^9]
[14] A motion for particulars is normally made before the close of pleadings. However, the court has discretion to order particulars after discovery in a complex case to focus the litigation, to enable a party to prepare for trial, and enable the court to better know the real issue to be tried.[^10]
Analysis
[15] The starting point of this motion is the Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim issued on August 26, 2022.
[16] In the claim, the Plaintiff seeks, among other things, general and aggravated damages for sexual assault and battery, injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, and/or the intentional inflicting of mental suffering. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were minors during the time the alleged incidents took place between 1993 and 1997/8.[^11]
[17] It is important to note that, under the Limitations Act, 2002, there is no limitation period in respect of a proceeding based on a sexual assault, or a proceeding based on any other misconduct of a sexual nature if, at the time of the misconduct, the person with the claim was a minor.[^12]
[18] Based on my review of the notice of motion and draft order delivered by the Defendant, the paragraphs of the claim at issue in this motion are the ones reproduced below:
When Chantelle was approximately 5 years old and J.P. was approximately 14, he began to sexually abuse Chantelle during family gatherings at her great grandparent's house.
J.P. told Chantelle, who was very young and trusting, that they were going to play a secret game. J.P. then began to touch Chantelle in an inappropriate and sexual manner. J.P.'s abuse of Chantelle began with him touching Chantelle's legs, and quickly escalated to J.P. fondling Chantelle's genitals and forcing Chantelle to touch his genitals, both over and under their clothing.
J.P.'s assaults on Chantelle occurred on the second floor and in the basement of Chantelle's great grandparent's home when J.P. and Chantelle were alone. J.P. also assaulted Chantelle behind the shed and in the garden area outside Chantelle's great grandparent's home.
Over time, J.P. assaults on Chantelle became more invasive and he began to digitally penetrate Chantelle during moments alone at family gatherings. J.P. assaults left Chantelle deeply confused and frightened, but she continued to endure J.P.'s assaults in silence because of J.P.'s instruction that what happened between them was a secret.
[19] The Defendant served a Demand for Particulars dated November 18, 2022, which contained the following requests:
re paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 – provide the dates and precise location and nature of each incident of the sexual abuse / abusive conduct / incident of assault / incident of the more invasive assault alleged to have occurred.
re paragraph 10 – also provide the dates and locations(s) where it is alleged that the Defendant told the Plaintiff that what had happened between them was a secret.
[20] The Plaintiff served a Response to Demand for Particulars dated November 30, 2022, where she indicated that (a) she had provided sufficient particulars to enable the defendant to plead; (b) the nature of the sexual assaults is sufficiently described; and (c) further particulars were a matter of discovery.
[21] The Defendant delivered a Statement of Defence dated November 1, 2023, where he denied the allegations of sexual abuse made by the Plaintiff in the paragraphs of her claim reproduced above. He specially pleads that he "was never alone with the Plaintiff whether at Grandpa and Grandma P's house, on the premises or on any other occasion or location", and the "social interactions between [them] were minimal and … [he] denies he had any physical contact with the Plaintiff whatsoever at any time."
[22] The Defendant has also plead that he was not in a position of trust or authority in relation to the Plaintiff, and has denied that the Plaintiff confronted him at a family wedding in 2005 about abuse he had allegedly inflicted upon her.
[23] The Defendant argues that the particulars he seeks will allow him to know the case he has to meet at trial, and they will define the nature, timing and location of the factual allegations. Additionally, the Defendant argues that as the Plaintiff's claim deals with intentional torts, she must provide full particulars of the incidents under the Rules. The Defendant also alleges that the pleading is inconsistent with the documents produced to date, including counselling records, police interview notes, and interview transcripts. Lastly, the Defendant believes that the sought after particulars will narrow the issues for discovery and for trial and prevent a "broadly scoped scatter gun approach" in this action.
[24] Based on my review of the pleadings and the arguments of the parties, the Defendant has failed to convince me that further particulars are necessary in this action for the following reasons.
[25] Firstly, as the Defendant has issued a defence in this action, he does not require additional answers to the Demand to allow him to issue a pleading in response to the claim. As well, the Defendant did not swear an affidavit in support of his motion. The only affidavit filed was sworn by a legal assistant to counsel to the Defendant. As a result, there is no evidence from the Defendant that the particulars are not within his knowledge and that they are necessary for him to plead, and I place little weight on the assistant's affidavit.
[26] Secondly, the parties have yet to hold examinations for discovery in this proceeding. As noted in Van-Rob Inc. v Rapid Metals LLC, "[w]here oral discovery is available, the general approach is to limit particulars to what a party requires in order to respond to a pleading and to flesh out the story at oral discoveries".[^13] In this case, the Defendant will have the opportunity to examine the Plaintiff for discovery and ask her for specifics about the dates of the alleged assaults, and ask her about any inconsistencies that may exist in the documents that have been produced to date. I believe this to be, as Master McGraw (as he was then titled) held in 3 Dogs Daycare Inc. v. Dogtopia Enterprises Canada Inc., a realistic and pragmatic approach, as the subsequent stages in this litigation process (e.g. oral discovery) will function to clarify and narrow the issues in this action.[^14]
[27] Thirdly, in reviewing the claim in its entirety, I do not see how the Defendant can have any issue understanding the case he has to meet based on the allegations contained in the claim. The claim clearly states that the Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendant sexually abused her multiple times at her great grandparents' house during family events that occurred between when she was 5 and 9 years old (between the years of 1993 and 1997/8). The claim provides details as to the nature of each of the incidents and the conduct she alleges the Defendant carried out. Reviewing the claim, I do not see these allegations to be "general" or "bald" in any way that would require further particulars.
[28] The only thing essentially sought by the Defendant is the dates of the alleged assaults. I do not see how the specific dates requested by the Defendant will in any way change the approach in this litigation, including for discovery, or narrow the issues. The Defendant has already denied that he ever abused the Plaintiff in any way, shape or form. He also says he never was alone with her at any time ever. This is not a case where there is an issue to be determined whether an alleged act was consensual or not.
[29] I agree with the Plaintiff that the particulars sought by the Defendant constitute "granular level of minutiae" and are inquiries more appropriately left for examinations for discovery. In my view, the minimum level of material fact disclosure required in a pleading has been reached by the Plaintiff in the descriptions of the assaults and their locations set out in her claim.
[30] Lastly, the Defendant has not referred me to any case law that has considered intentional torts such as sexual assault and battery and what constitutes "full particulars" under subrule 25.06(8) of the Rules in the context of such cases. In Certified Equipment Sales v Iuorio, Justice Verner held that for an intentional tort such as malice, the pleading should be considered as a whole when assessing whether the pleading provides full particulars, and that "all of the allegations, should be considered in the context of the pleading as a whole to determine whether there are sufficient particulars provided."[^15]
[31] I am required to construe the Rules liberally to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits.[^16] In a case such as this dealing with sexual assaults that allegedly occurred more than 30 years when the claimant was a child, I believe that the details of the incidents contained in the claim are sufficient to satisfy the purposes of particulars set out in the case law principles summarized above, and thus constitute "full particulars" for the purposes of subrule 25.06(8) of the Rules.
[32] In the end, the Defendant has failed to convince me that he will be in any way prejudiced in his preparation for the discovery process or at trial by virtue of not knowing the dates of the alleged assaults at this time in the litigation process.
Disposition and Costs
[33] For the reasons set out above, the Defendant's motion for an order compelling the Plaintiff to provide further answers in response to his Demand for Particulars is dismissed.
[34] With respect to costs, I strongly urge the parties to come to an agreement. I note that the amount of partial indemnity costs sought by the Plaintiff is approximately $5,000 less than that sought by the Defendant.
[35] If the parties are unable to come to an agreement on costs, they may contact my Assistant Trial Coordinator to obtain my direction on the exchange of written submissions.
Associate Justice Rappos
Date: October 1, 2025
Footnotes
[^1]: The identity of the Defendant, as well as certain documents in the court file, are subject to a sealing order.
[^2]: Pennyfeather v. Timminco Limited, 2011 ONSC 4257, para. 59, citing Antonacci v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd., para. 33.
[^3]: Ibid., para. 60, citing J.W. Morden and P.M. Perell, The Law of Civil Procedure in Ontario, 1st ed. (Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis, 2010), p. 347.
[^4]: Ibid., para. 61.
[^5]: Ibid., para. 62.
[^6]: Van-Rob Inc. v Rapid Metals LLC, 2016 ONSC 1321, para. 9.
[^7]: Concept Plastics Ltd. v. Haynes, 2009 CarswellOnt 1534, para. 13, citing Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians v. The Attorney General of Canada, [2000] O.J. No. 1431.
[^8]: 3 Dogs Daycare Inc. v. Dogtopia Enterprises Canada Inc., 2021 ONSC 514, para. 21.
[^9]: Bronson Consulting Inc. v. A.G. of Canada, 2019 ONSC 2436, paras. 28-31.
[^10]: Delta Investments v. HSBC Securities, 2015 ONSC 3938, paras. 34-37.
[^11]: In her claim, the Plaintiff states that she was born on September 24, 1988, and that the incidents allegedly occurred when she was between the ages of 5 and 9.
[^12]: Limitations Act, 2002, ss. 16(1)(h) and (h.1).
[^13]: Van-Rob Inc. v Rapid Metals LLC, 2016 ONSC 1321, para. 10.
[^14]: 3 Dogs Daycare Inc. v. Dogtopia Enterprises Canada Inc., 2021 ONSC 514, para. 21.
[^15]: Certified Equipment Sales v Iuorio, 2024 ONSC 2948 (unreported), para. 9.
[^16]: Rules of Civil Procedure, subrule 1.04(1).