1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
6.14: Appeal from master’s judgment or order

Case Summary

Justice Dario heard an Appeal of the Defendants of a Master’s Decision. The Defendants sought to strike all, or a portion of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68 on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. After considering relevant case law, Justice Dario confirmed that the onus on an Applicant seeking to strike a Statement of Claim is high. If there is any reasonable prospect the claim will succeed, the Statement of Claim should not be struck. Justice Dario relied on Grenon v Canada Revenue Agency, 2017 ABCA 96, in recognizing that this philosophy is consistent with the underlying philosophy of the Rules, including Rule 1.2. Ultimately, Justice Dario struck small portions of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim; however, the Plaintiff was largely successful in defending the Appeal.

Prior to addressing the factual issues, Justice Dario addressed the standard of review. While both parties agreed that the standard of review on Appeal from a Master is correctness, the Plaintiff argued that a Master’s Decision should not be disturbed unless the Master made a clear error in the interpretation of the law. The Defendants took the position that the Appeal is an Appeal de novo. Justice Dario confirmed that, under Rule 6.14, an Appeal from a Master’s Decision is an Appeal on the record.

View CanLII Details