Two employees respond to defamation claim outlining alleged intimidation, dishonesty
A former Mastermind Toys manager allegedly fabricated a life-threatening brain surgery to elicit sympathy from employees before claiming defamation.
He claimed the employees published written statements about him that were defamatory in nature, including statements that he was “unsafe, intimidating, corruptive, manipulative and dishonest.”
However, associate judge Rory Krentz of the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed his particulars application on Jan. 23, 2026, finding that the employees had adequately outlined their case at this early stage.
Brain surgery questions
The manager supervised two siblings at Mastermind Toys before his layoff in early 2025. According to the defendants' pleadings, the manager "became fixated on [the sister] and engaged in conduct that made her uncomfortable," including providing gifts, telling her he loved her, and attempting to pursue a romantic relationship.
The most serious allegation centred on a "Stockroom Incident" on Feb. 28, 2025, when the manager requested the sister speak with him in the stockroom at the Abbotsford location. Once inside, the employees allege that he informed the sister that he had been terminated, then attempted to engage her in discussions about pursuing a personal and romantic relationship, which she declined.
After his layoff, the manager's alleged behaviour escalated into what the defendants characterized as manipulation. The court reviewed pleadings stating that "in an attempt to obtain sympathy and communication from [the sister], the plaintiff informed [the brother] that he required urgent brain surgery... and that he might not survive the procedure."
On the alleged surgery date of May 5, 2025, the brother attempted to visit the manager at Vancouver General Hospital, say the pleadings, but no record of his admission existed at that hospital or any other in the district.
The defendants' pleadings stated that the manager later admitted that he had fabricated aspects of the alleged brain surgery and his activities that day.
Court rejects demand for particulars
In their defence to the claim of defamation, the employees essentially relied on two defences: first, that the written statements were not defamatory; and second, that the messages were substantially true and the sting of the communications accurately reflect the plaintiff's conduct, so they were justified, said the court.
“The response to civil claim includes defences of qualified privilege and that the plaintiff has not shown the statements threatened his reputation.”
However, within four days of the filing, the former manager submitted a 12-page request for particulars. This is largely based on the the principle that, in defamation cases, “the pleadings require precise material facts and when a party fails to comply with that rule, a demand for particulars is both appropriate and necessary,” explained the court.
However, judge Krentz found the employees had provided enough information at this point.
"The pleadings that I have just reviewed contain material facts, and while they may be facts not to be found accurate at trial, they adequately inform the plaintiff of the nature of the case to be met and properly identifies the evidence to be gathered," the judge stated.
“The demand for particulars made by the plaintiff is more in line with a demand for evidence and not a proper use of a demand for particulars.
