Drafting Deficiency Concerns: The Requirement That Courts Review Pleadings Generously

Question: How should courts approach the reading of pleading documents during a Motion to Strike?

Answer: Courts are guided by the principle of generous readings, accommodating drafting deficiencies to ensure a just process, particularly important for self-represented litigants in Small Claims Court. Understanding this approach can help safeguard potentially viable claims from dismissal.

Generous Readings for Pleading Documents

Courts often face the challenge of balancing procedural fairness with efficient case management.  A critical aspect of this balance involves how pleading documents are read, particularly when a court considers a Motion to Strike.  Courts recognize the need for generous readings of pleadings, acknowledging potential drafting deficiencies due to various factors such as lack of legal training or complex factual scenarios.  Understanding the nuances of this approach is vital when addressing a Motion to Strike a pleading and to the ensuring of access to justice.

The Law

The principle that, during the Motion to Strike process, a pleading should be read generously with leniency for drafting deficiencies is articulated widely throughout jurisprudence including the case of 728654 Ontario Inc. o/a Locomotion Tavern v. Ontario, 2005 CanLII 36159, wherein it was stated:

Small Claims Court

While the test for whether a Motion to Strike is softer within a proceeding of the Small Claims Court, the requirement that pleadings be read generously remains.  The requirement for a generous reading of a Small Claims Court pleading may be even more important within the Small Claims Court realm whereas proceedings in Small Claims Court often involve laypeople who will be without the technical legal knowledge as applicable to the drafting of quality pleadings.  This principle was stated within the case of Korb v. McCeachran, 2014 CanLII 26364, wherein it was said:

Frequent Concerns

Key general issues often encountered within the context of pleading interpretation during the process of a Motion to Strike include:

• The Drafting Vagueness:
  Many pleadings, especially those drafted by self-represented persons, may lack precise legal language.  Courts attempt to read these pleadings with flexibility so to capture the essence of the case while maintaining fairness in proceedings.
• The Complexity of Legal Concepts:
  Pleadings might involve intricate legal doctrines that are difficult to articulate comprehensively, especially at an early stage, being before a Trial and therefore without a completely understood factual record.  Courts strive to ensure that essential claims are understood, even if imperfectly expressed.
• The Potential for Miscarriage of Justice:
  Striking a pleading without due consideration could inadvertently dismiss viable claims.  Recognizing this, courts cautiously assess the grounds for such motions to uphold judicial integrity.

Effective Strategies for Pleading Challenges

The most effective strategy for addressing a pleading challenge via a Motion to Strike is to prepare a proper pleading from the very beginning, thereby avoiding a Motion to Strike entirely; however, whether beforehand or afterward, consider the following:

• The Understanding of Judicial Standards:
  Courts apply the principle that pleadings must disclose a reasonable cause of action or defence, meaning that if the legal theories raised will ultimately fail, then any further proceeding with the matter is unnecessary.  Essentially, if the pleading, even when read generously, will lead to a figurative legal dead end, then proving that which is contained within the pleading becomes unnecessary and moot.
• The Use of Strategic Drafting Techniques:
  Employing careful language and providing detailed narratives within pleadings can minimize ambiguities and strengthen clarity, reducing the risk of a successful Motion to Strike.
• The Tailoring of Adequate Amendments:
  When drafting deficiencies are identified, courts may permit amendments to pleadings rather than outright dismissal.  The opportunity to amend a pleading should be taken with due care with well tailored corrective efforts.

Conclusion

The approach to courts is to provide a generous readings of pleadings.  This approach highlights the commitment to fairness and accessibility as held by the judiciary.  Understanding pleading requirements is invaluable when navigating the complexities within the legal process and for avoiding unnecessary dismissal of a potentially meritorious claim.