1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies

Case Summary

The Appellant, Grenon, appealed a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench in which all the causes of action pleaded in the Statement of Claim were struck (save one, which was stayed pending the outcome of a different hearing at the Tax Court of Canada). The causes of action were struck pursuant to Rule 3.68 on the basis that they either disclosed no claim, or that the issues fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada.

The Court reviewed the test to strike a Claim under Rule 3.68(2)(b), which permits a Court to strike all or part of a Claim if it does not disclose a reasonable claim, meaning that there is no reasonable prospect of success. The Court noted that, in considering whether a reasonable claim has been disclosed, the Court must accept that the allegations as pleaded are true, except if they are incapable of proof, patently ridiculous, or are based on speculation or assumption. Further, the Court should “err on the side of generosity” so that novel but potentially meritorious claims are still able to be heard. The Court observed that this approach is consistent with Rule 1.2(2)(a) and (b), which support the facilitation of efficient and economic resolutions of Claims. The Court dismissed the Appeal except with respect to the Appellant’s claim that he was the proper party to sue on behalf of the trust.

View CanLII Details