The Applicant sought to strike or summarily dismiss the Defendant’s Counterclaim under Rules 3.64, 3.68, 7.2, and 7.3. The allegations presented in the Defendant’s Counterclaim were categorized into two groups: first, damages stemming from a complaint lodged with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), which led to an investigation initiated by IRCC in February 2016; and second, claims of assault and battery purportedly occurring on September 15 and 16, 2015.

The Applicant argued that the Claim for legal fees incurred by the Defendant in dealing with the IRCC investigation did not disclose a cause of action.

Justice Angotti acknowledged that Rule 3.68 allows the Court to strike all or part of a claim if the pleading discloses no reasonable claim. The Court further referenced Rule 13.6(2), emphasizing that a pleading must set out the relevant facts upon which a party relies for the cause of action and the remedy claimed. Additionally, Rules 13.6(3) and 13.7 require that certain causes of action must be specifically pleaded.

Justice Angotti remarked that the Respondent is required to present their strongest case by clearly identifying the cause of action and demonstrating how the pleading satisfies the necessary elements. The Respondent did not fulfill this requirement. Their pleading merely stated that the Defendant incurred damages due to legal fees in response to an IRCC investigation, which allegedly stemmed from a complaint made by the Plaintiff under false pretenses.

The Court pointed out that merely perceiving another's actions as harmful does not automatically constitute a cause of action sufficient to seek legal remedies. There must be a recognized legal duty owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to pursue a legal remedy. In the absence of a statutory right to such a remedy, causes of action have evolved through common law in areas such as tort, contract, and equity, each requiring specific elements to be proven to establish a valid cause of action.

On that basis, Angotti J. struck certain paragraphs of the Counterclaim.

The Court then evaluated whether the claim for assault and battery should be dismissed summarily under Rule 7.3, due to the Counterclaim's failure to indicate a reasonable fear of imminent harm. The Court found this was not the case, and the facts pleaded did establish this element. The Applicant also argued the claim should be struck or dismissed as being brought past the limitation period, pursuant to the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 (the Act). However, this argument also failed due to exceptions provided for domestic violence under s. 3.1 of the Act, and Counterclaims, under s. 6(2) of the Act. The claim for assault and battery was therefore maintained.

Lastly, the Court reviewed the Defendant’s Statement of Defence to determine if paragraphs should be struck out. Angotti J. considered Rule 3.68(2)(c), which permits the striking of all or part of a claim if the pleading is deemed frivolous, irrelevant, or improper. The Court also considered Rule 13.6(2), which requires parties to plead the facts they intend to rely on. After examining the contested paragraphs, Justice Angotti decided to strike two paragraphs from the Statement of Defence that were found to be either improper or unrelated to the facts or claims presented in the Statement of Claim.