Kent Homes v. Balcom

Kent Homes v. Balcom

A bare general denial is insufficient in the Small Claims Court; defendants must particularize their reasons and material facts supporting their denial so the claimant is not taken by surprise and so that evidence is restricted to the pleaded case. Reliance on s.2 of the Small Claims Court Act does not excuse compliance with pleading principles; accordingly the application to compel particulars is granted and defendants ordered to file a properly drafted Defence/Counterclaim with particulars by the deadline set by the adjudicator.

Citation
2005 NSSM 6
Parties
Claimant: Kent Homes, a Division of J. D. Irving Limited; Defendant: Byron Balcom; Defendant: AndersonSinclair, Barristers and Solicitors; Defendant: Hallmark Homes Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Action / Interlocutory (pleadings)
Outcome
Application granted — defendants ordered to particularize their Defence/Counterclaim
Legal Topics
Particulars of Defence, Responsiveness of Pleadings, Application to Strike/particularize Defence, Applicability of Civil Procedure Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Pleadings Small Claims Court Practice Particulars of Defence Responsiveness of Pleadings Application to Strike/particularize Defence Applicability of Civil Procedure Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kent Homes, a Division of J. D. Irving Limited

Claimant

Byron Balcom

Defendant

AndersonSinclair, Barristers and Solicitors

Defendant

Hallmark Homes Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Action / Interlocutory (pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a general denial satisfies pleading obligations in Small Claims Court
  2. 2 Whether defendants must particularize reasons and bases for disputing a claim
  3. 3 Extent to which Civil Procedure Rules and common law pleading principles apply in Small Claims Court

Ratio Decidendi

A bare general denial is insufficient in the Small Claims Court; defendants must particularize their reasons and material facts supporting their denial so the claimant is not taken by surprise and so that evidence is restricted to the pleaded case. Reliance on s.2 of the Small Claims Court Act does not excuse compliance with pleading principles; accordingly the application to compel particulars is granted and defendants ordered to file a properly drafted Defence/Counterclaim with particulars by the deadline set by the adjudicator.

Court Disposition

Application granted — defendants ordered to particularize their Defence/Counterclaim

Orders

  • Defendants Balcom and AndersonSinclair must file, serve and deliver to the Adjudicator a properly drafted Defence/Counterclaim particularizing reasons and bases for disputing the claim by noon on Wednesday, October 26, 2005
  • Service on the Claimant's counsel and delivery to the Adjudicator via facsimile acceptable