One of the individual Defendants, (the “Applicant”) applied to have the pleadings against him struck out pursuant to Rule 3.68, or alternatively for Summary Dismissal of the claims against him.

The Applicant sought to have the Claim struck on the basis that the claims were insufficiently pleaded. However, Hall J. noted that the Applicant had not served a Request for Particulars, and such a request would almost certainly be upheld by the Court. His Lordship observed that “[a]ny deficiency in the pleading is in respect to a lack of particulars, which may be remedied by a demand by the Applicant as to these particulars”. Justice Hall was not persuaded that the pleadings disclosed “no reasonable prospect of success”, and accordingly dismissed the Application to strike the pleadings.

Justice Hall considered the Applicant’s alternative Application for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 7.3, in which the Plaintiffs sought to pierce the corporate veil to find the Applicant personally liable for the alleged wrongful acts underlying the Action. Justice Hall considered the test for lifting the corporate veil, and applied the test from Hyrniak v Mauldin, 2015 SCC 7 (CanLII) and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd, 2014 ABCA 108 (CanLII) which established that the Court must “examine the record to see if a disposition that is fair and just to both parties can be made on the existing record”. Justice Hall held that, on the record before the Court that it was not possible to conclude that there was no genuine issue requiring a Trial. The Summary Dismissal Application was dismissed.