DE VOS v ALBERTA (TRANSPORTATION), 2020 ABQB 234
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
The Plaintiff alleged negligence against the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services (the “Registrar”) and others after he experienced difficulties renewing his motor vehicle license after his 75th birthday. The Registrar and two individual Defendants applied for the Action to be struck as against them pursuant to Rule 3.68 on the basis that the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim did not disclose a reasonable claim against them.
Master Birkett explained that all or part of a claim may be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68(2)(b) where the pleading discloses no reasonable claim, meaning that there is “no reasonable prospect the claim will succeed” even where the Court has accepted the allegations of fact in the pleading as true. Master Birkett noted that the Court should err on the side of “generosity” to permit novel but arguable claims to proceed, but must still apply Rule 3.68 as intended to strike claims that do not disclose a reasonable cause of action. Master Birkett explained that this is consistent with Rule 1.2(2)(a) and (b) which states that the purpose of the Rules is to identify the real issues between the parties, and to facilitate the quickest and most economical means of resolution.
Master Birkett considered whether the Amended Statement of Claim, interpreted liberally, disclosed any claims against the Applicants, and determined that it did not. The Action was struck as against the Applicants.View CanLII Details