3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)

Case Summary

The Applicant sought to bring an end to a protracted dispute by seeking to have the Plaintiff’s Action struck or summarily dismissed.

While canvassing the two Parties’ dispute history, Justice Jones noted that, in an earlier Action, the Applicant had brought an Application to have the earlier Action struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. The Applications Judge opted to stay the earlier Action while the Workers’ Compensation Board’s internal administrative processes proceeded.

With regards to the Application at bar, Justice Jones identified and analyzed the test for striking a Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68. Ultimately, after considering the positions of the Applicant and Respondent, and the relevant statutory authorities, Justice Jones concluded that the Action should be struck as it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had no reasonable prospect of success.

Justice Jones also considered the alternative position of the Applicant; that the Action be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 7.3. After considering the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12, Justice Jones found that should he be incorrect in his conclusion under Rule 3.68, the Application for Summary Dismissal under Rule 7.3 would be granted.

View CanLII Details