Thomas v. McMullan

Thomas v. McMullan

The court held that the catch‑all phrase maintaining reliance on the entirety of the article is disallowed because it causes embarrassment to the defendant in pleading and preparing for discovery and trial; the offending phrase must be struck from the reply, the plaintiff must file amended particulars if necessary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 BCSC 863
Parties
Plaintiff: Gregory Thomas; Defendant: Heather McMullan; Third Party: Ewen Stewart; Third Party: Harold Munro; Third Party: Rick Ouston; Third Party: Southam Inc.; Third Party: Jordan Bateman; Third Party: Advance Newspaper Ltd.; Third Party: Frank Bucholtz; Third Party: Langley Times Publishing Company
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Libel/slander (defamation) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Particulars (in Chambers)
Outcome
Offending phrase struck out; plaintiff given 14 days to amend particulars if necessary; defendant awarded costs to be set by the trial judge.
Legal Topics
Particulars, Pleading, Discovery, Costs
Source Language
english
Defamation Civil Procedure Particulars Pleading Discovery Costs

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory Thomas

Plaintiff

Heather McMullan

Defendant

Ewen Stewart

Third Party

Harold Munro

Third Party

Rick Ouston

Third Party

Southam Inc.

Third Party

Jordan Bateman

Third Party

Advance Newspaper Ltd.

Third Party

Frank Bucholtz

Third Party

Langley Times Publishing Company

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Libel/slander (defamation) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Particulars (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a plaintiff relying on a lengthy published article must specify the particular words or passages alleged to be defamatory rather than relying on the entire article as pleaded
  2. 2 Whether a catch‑all reliance on the entirety of an article causes embarrassment to the defendant in pleading and preparing for trial and discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the catch‑all phrase maintaining reliance on the entirety of the article is disallowed because it causes embarrassment to the defendant in pleading and preparing for discovery and trial; the offending phrase must be struck from the reply, the plaintiff must file amended particulars if necessary within a fixed period, and the defendant is entitled to costs.

Court Disposition

Offending phrase struck out; plaintiff given 14 days to amend particulars if necessary; defendant awarded costs to be set by the trial judge.

Orders

  • Strike out the words "while maintaining his reliance on the entirety of the allegation at paragraph 3 of the statement of claim" from the reply to demand for particulars
  • Plaintiff to have 14 days to file an amended reply to demand for particulars with respect to paragraph 3 if necessary