Must a defense be given if a plaintiff&#39;s accusation is nonsense?
<p>In court what happens if a party makes a nonsense accusation, almost as if they aren't thinking straight? For example if someone launched the case against you "he must have stolen the banana loaf bread because he was wearing a blue shirt and the time was 4:20" would you even need a defense or is there a word for when this happens?</p>

<p>My ex-landlord is withholding all of my damage deposit and the only explanation is a couple of vague text messages saying he had to pay a fine to the ISP due to copyright infringement on a day I was the only one home. I can say a lot about this, but despite my request he has not given me any details or shown me any official documents. So is there a way in court to say "this rebuttal doesn't even deserve consideration?" I can't even prove that I wasn't home on that day as he hasn't specified the day. The way I see things happening is me filing against him for my damage deposit, his defense being he got a fine for (allegedly) my misuse of the internet, what should my rebuttal be in the sense that upon filing against him he had never even provided details? </p>

<p>Even if this was true, a person normally isn't sitting in front of their computer watching a download so just because they weren't home wouldn't mean anything. Plus the landlord is in a different city, and I can show he has held prejudice against me, and would not know I was the only one home. Further, it's my understanding the notices aren't even legally enforceable in Canada.</p>

<p>This is confused. If your landlord withholds money from you, it will be you taking him to court and making accusations, which hopefully make sense. You will tell the judge "the landlord should give me that money because ... " and the landlord will say in his defence "No, I shouldn't hand over that money because ..."</p>

<p>If you are taken to court and you think the accusations are stupid, then you <em>will</em> have to put up a defense. In the case you state, you would answer for example "I did not steal any banana bread". You may add that you don't own a blue shirt (if that is true), or that you didn't wear it at 4:20 (if that is true). You state the facts. The judge will determine whether there is enough evidence that you stole the banana bread or not. </p>

<p>If you took your landlord to court, you would state that he owes you money, that there is no reason why he should keep it. He would then state his reason for withholding the money. If you then state "this is so stupid, I won't even respond to this", then it is his word against nothing and whatever facts he claims that you don't contradict are assumed to be true. </p>

<p>PS. If one side claims facts, and the other side doesn't contradict, then these facts become "undisputed facts" and are considered true. However, if one side claims legal conclusions, and the other side doesn't contradict, then the judge should completely ignore the legal conclusions, because legal conclusions are the judge's job and not the plaintiff's or defendant's job. So if your opponent claims "you wore a blue shirt and that proves you stole the banana bread", then the judge should ignore that logical conclusion. </p>

<p>In this specific case there are probably existing legal prohibitions against the landlord doing that, since housing is a highly regulated industry and most jurisdictions have rules that limit circumstances for retaining a damage deposit. Apart from that, you may be looking for the concept <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment" rel="nofollow">"summary judgment"</a>, where a judge can render judgment without having a full trial. Summary judgment seems to be newer / less common in Canada that in the US, but see <a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc7/2014scc7.html" rel="nofollow">Hrzniak v. Mauldin</a>. As they said, "Summary judgment motions must be granted whenever there is no genuine issue requiring a trial". But the assumption is that there is actually no issue to be resolved at a trial (that is, the facts are clear and the law is clear). If the landlord alleges that your wrongful action caused him a loss, and you dispute that you took any action, then it is almost certain that there would be a trial, to determine what the facts are.</p>

<p>In this circumstance, you are the person who wants something from the court (an order to return your deposit), so the burden is on you to initiate a process and establish that the landlord should return the deposit. You would claim that you caused no damage and therefore he is obligated to return the money, and he would counter-argue that you did cause damage, and ultimately it would come down to a combination of fact (did you do something wrong) and law (is withholding a damage deposit an acceptable remedy).</p>

<p>The legal term, is to <em>demur</em> to the allegation.</p>

canada small-claims-court rules-of-court