Nixon J

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

Case Summary

The Defendant/Appellants, Glenn and Glenn Law Office (“Glenn”), appealed a Master’s Order which struck portions of the Statement of Claim against them, but two pleadings remained. The Plaintiff/Respondent, Dagher had claimed against Glenn, his former counsel, for breach of contract and negligence causing economic loss. Glenn argued that the remaining pleadings should also be struck out on the basis that the Action was moot, without merit and properly disposed of by way of Summary Judgment.

Justice Nixon reviewed the principles of Summary Judgment as outlined in Rule 7.3, and noted that the rules relating to Summary Judgment should be interpreted broadly, in order to favour “proportionality and fair access to the affordable, timely and just adjudication of claims”, where there is no genuine issue for trial.

Justice Nixon noted that the scope of the pleadings define the case; while legal conclusions need not be plead, pursuant to Rule 13.6(3) pleadings must include a “a statement of any matter on which a party intends to reply so that the other party is not taken by surprise”. The Court may order that a claim be struck in whole or in part if it fails to disclose a reasonable claim, pursuant to Rule 3.68(2)(b).

Justice Nixon reviewed the Pleadings, and found that they disclosed no reasonable claim. His Lordship considered the entire context of the Pleadings, but noted that no evidence was admissible pursuant Rule 3.68(3). Justice Nixon concluded that the Pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and granted Glenn’s Appeal on that basis. Nixon J. noted that the claims could also be dismissed pursuant to Rule 7.3(1)(b), as they had no merit.


View CanLII Details