As can be seen, the plaintiff makes a broadly stated claim of malice in paragraph 45 and the defendants seek further particulars of that issue. However, an allegation of malice in a claim is a question of fact, it is sufficient by itself and particulars of malice are not required (Samaroo v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2013 BCSC 482, at paras. 19-23). This appears to be codified in Rule 3-7(17).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.