Ms. Engler sought an Order striking portions of Mr. Engler’s Affidavits on the grounds that they contained allegations not supported by independent evidence, were too long and contained opinion. The Court held that Mr. Engler’s Affidavits were prolix, repetitive, argumentative and sometimes irrelevant. The Court cited Chevron Canada Resources v Canada (Executive Director of Indian Oil and Gas Canada), 1998 ABQB 910, for the proposition that although the Court could review the parties Affidavits and strike out material which is frivolous, irrelevant or improper, the wiser course of action is to ignore the material. The Court then cited Elkow v Sana, 2006 ABQB 851, for the exception to the general rule, that if the material is interwoven with the acceptable evidence, then the only solution may be to strike the complete Affidavit. The Court struck one paragraph from one of the Affidavits as it was both irrelevant and gratuitously offensive.