Pursuant to Rule 3.68 the Defendants sought to strike certain paragraphs of the Plaintiff`s Statement of Claim on the basis that the impugned paragraphs were, among other things, frivolous, irrelevant, argumentative, embarrassing, sensational, speculative, vague and conclusory. The Court noted that the onus was on the Defendants to establish entitlement to the relief sought. Clackson J. also stated that:

… [t]he defendants must establish the ills claimed beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, I must be sure each of the impugned paragraphs violates rule 3.68 before I can grant any relief in relation to that paragraph.

After reviewing the impugned paragraphs, Clackson J. determined that they were not only proper, but necessary to the Plaintiff`s claim. The Court declined to strike any portion of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. However, the Court did note a deficiency in the Statement of Claim in that the Defendants could not determine from the pleading what event or events amounted to what actionable wrong, and which Defendants were claimed to be liable for having committed that wrong. Clackson J. stated that the pleading was vague as to cause of action and what defendant was responsible. The vaguery was contrary to Rule 3.68(c), as informed by Rule 1.2.

The Court ordered that the Plaintiff amend his Statement of Claim so as to identify the connections between the allegations made and the wrong claimed as it related to each Defendant.