What is the test for delivering particulars in a personal injury action?

Master Bishop in Yewdale v. ICBC, [1994] B.C.J. No. 1892 (S.C.)(QL), at para. 68, concluded that the following principles should be considered on each application for particulars: 1. Given the increasing number and complexity of cases brought before our court, any steps legitimately taken to clarify the issues and reduce the length of trial must be encouraged; 2. Parties to an action must frame their pleadings with certainty and they are not permitted to bring or defend an action in the hope that the claim or defence will be established by admissions on a notice to admit or at an examination for discovery. In framing their pleadings, so much as is possible and practical, the parties must set out the facts but not the evidence on which they intend to rely to prove their claim or defence; 3. The purpose of particulars is to require a party to clarify the issues raised by the pleadings so that the opposite party may be able to properly respond to the pleadings and to properly prepare for an examination for discovery and for trial; 4. An examination for discovery is not a substitute for an order for particulars and an application for particulars should not be defeated by an argument that the applicant can get the same particulars by way of conducting an examination for discovery; 5. If the particulars applied for are generally only known to the party making the application, that party may be required to give discovery prior to particulars being ordered; 6. The order for delivery of particulars is one of discretion to be exercised in a judicial manner. In exercising the discretion, the justice or master must be mindful of the stage of proceedings when determining whether or not: 1. sufficient particulars have been given, or 2. particulars should be delivered now, or 3. particulars should be given following an examination for discovery, or 4. some particulars should be given now and others given later following discoveries.