Yes No Share to Facebook
Blanket Denials: Improper Failure to Admit or Provide Alternative Fact Allegations
Question: What are the consequences of using blanket denials in a defence pleading?
Answer: Using blanket denials in a defence pleading is improper, as it may lead to the denial being struck by the court. To effectively contest a claim, a Defendant must provide specific alternative factual allegations, which is crucial for ensuring a proper understanding of the dispute and aiding in discovery processes.
Defence Pleading Requirement to Refrain From Blanket Denials
In the process of litigation, a Plaintiff puts forward factual allegations in the pleadings included in the claim document. Subsequently, the Defendant is expected to do more than simply refute in a blanket denial all of the factual allegations within the claim. A blanket denial is regarded as an improper and will likely be struck by the court.
The Law
A Defendant pleads improperly by defending a lawsuit by just stating, essentially, "I disagree with the Plaintiff", unless alternative factual allegations are provided to contest the factual allegations stated by the Plaintiff. A denial of allegations without providing contrasting allegations is known as a blanket denial or bald defence. The relevant law requiring a Defendant to plead details beyond just a blanket denial is explained within, among other cases, Newton Crypto Ltd. v. Lebon, 2023 ONSC 5536, Ottawa (City) v. Cole & Associates Architects Inc., 2012 ONSC 3360, whereas each respectively stated:
[9] It is not permissible simply to deny the entire claim, as the Responding Defendants have essentially done in by their bare defences. A defendant must set out its own version of the facts as well as any affirmative defences. Doing so is critical since the pleadings are the foundation for discovery rights and the touchstone for determining what is relevant: Ottawa (City) v. Cole & Associates Architects Inc., 2012 ONSC 3360 at para. 19.
PURPOSES OF PLEADING
[15] Before considering the nature of particulars and why they might be necessary for pleading, it is helpful to say a word or two about the current system of pleading in Ontario. I say current because the specific requirements for pleading flow from the specific wording of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and they of course have been amended from time to time. In reality however Ontario uses “fact based pleading” which is the system that was adopted throughout the common law world in the 19th century. It should be noted that fact based pleading was abandoned in the United States in 1938 and more recently in England in 1999. I mention this only to make the point that pleadings in those two important jurisdictions now work somewhat differently than our own.
[16] The English court system was transformed in 1875 by the fusion of law and equity and by the introduction of a new system of pleading. The same reforms were adopted in Ontario in 1881. In this jurisdiction the Judicature Act, 1881, 44 Vic. C. 5, united and consolidated the courts of common law and equity and led to the introduction of new pleading rules. This was a response not only to the need to harmonize pleadings in equity and in law but also to finally eliminate the technicality of special pleading and forms of action that had encumbered the common law. Under the new system parties were required to set out in numbered paragraphs “as concisely as may be a statement of the material facts on which the party pleading relies, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.”[1] Though there have been many changes in civil procedure since that time, this is readily recognizable as the formula that now appears in Rule 25.06 of the current Ontario rules.
[17] Rule 25.06 contains the general requirements for pleadings. A party is to set out in numbered paragraphs a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proven. A party may, but need not, plead a conclusion of law but if a conclusion of law is pleaded then the material facts giving rise to that conclusion must also be pleaded. This is a critical point about fact based pleadings. It is not necessary in this system to precisely state the legal basis for a claim or to set out each “count” though it is permissible to do so. It is however necessary that the facts as pleaded disclose a cause of action and if a conclusion of law is pleaded then the facts necessary to support that conclusion must be pleaded with sufficient particularity. As an example, negligence is a conclusion of law so a claim of negligence must be supported by pleading the specific facts by which the plaintiff intends the court to reach that conclusion. There are also specific subrules containing requirements and interpretive rules for specific kinds of pleadings.
[18] Rule 25.07 is the rule dealing with defences. The first four subrules read as follows:
RULES OF PLEADING — APPLICABLE TO DEFENCES
Admissions
25.07 (1) In a defence, a party shall admit every allegation of fact in the opposite party’s pleading that the party does not dispute. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.07 (1).
Denials
(2) Subject to subrule (6), all allegations of fact that are not denied in a party’s defence shall be deemed to be admitted unless the party pleads having no knowledge in respect of the fact. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.07 (2).
Different Version of Facts
(3) Where a party intends to prove a version of the facts different from that pleaded by the opposite party, a denial of the version so pleaded is not sufficient, but the party shall plead the party’s own version of the facts in the defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.07 (3).
Affirmative Defences
(4) In a defence, a party shall plead any matter on which the party intends to rely to defeat the claim of the opposite party and which, if not specifically pleaded, might take the opposite party by surprise or raise an issue that has not been raised in the opposite party’s pleading. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.07 (4).
[19] The clear intention of these subrules is to try to focus the dispute as early as possible. It is not permissible simply to deny the entire claim. A defendant is to admit all allegations that it does not specifically deny and is to set out its own version of the facts as well as any affirmative defences. This is a critical exercise because the pleadings are the foundation for rights of production and discovery and the touchstone for determining what is relevant.[2]
Small Claims Court
The cases provided above are higher civil court decisions; however, it should be appreciated that blanket denials are also improper within the Small Claims Court. A Defendant within a Small Claims Court case should be alert to Rule 1.03 as well as Rule 9.02 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court, O. Reg. 258/98, whereas reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, may be deemed appropriate. A Defendant should give regard to the phrases, "secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination", "by reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure", and "a reasonable amount of detail", which appear to show that a Defence pleading containing a blanket denial remains improper to a case within the Small Claims Court. The relevant Rules of the Small Claims Court specificially state:
General Principle
1.03 (1) These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits in accordance with section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act.
Matters Not Covered in Rules
(2) If these rules do not cover a matter adequately, the court may give directions and make any order that is just, and the practice shall be decided by analogy to these rules, by reference to the Courts of Justice Act and the Act governing the action and, if the court considers it appropriate, by reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
...
Contents of Defence, Attachments
9.02 (1) The following requirements apply to the defence:
1. It shall contain the following information:
i. The reasons why the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s claim, expressed in concise non-technical language with a reasonable amount of detail.
Conclusion
A blanket denial within a Defence pleading is improper. When preparing a Defence pleading, a Defendant is generally required, with few exceptions, to either admit the facts as alleged or to plead alternative facts to those facts as alleged by the Plaintiff.