JONES v FORT SASKATCHEWAN (CITY), 2015 ABQB 194
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
The Plaintiff sued various Defendants, including the City of Fort Saskatchewan, in regard to issues arising from the operation of loud motorcycles around the City. The Plaintiff sought damages of approximately $850,000 as well as various Orders to compel the parties to respond to the perceived motorcycle issues. The Defendants brought an Application to strike the Plaintiff’s Claim, arguing that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous, irrelevant or improper and that it constituted an abuse of process.
Master Smart cited R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII) for the applicable test in an Application to strike: a Claim will be struck where it is “plain and obvious”, assuming the stated facts to be true, that there is no reasonable cause of action disclosed and that the Claim has no reasonable prospect of success. Master Smart noted that no evidence may be submitted on an Application made under Rule 3.68(2)(b), and applied the test to strike to each of the various allegations. Master Smart observed that the “greatest challenge” facing the Plaintiff was a lack of any facts which tied any of the alleged breaches or misconduct to the Plaintiff personally. Master Smart struck the entirety of the Plaintiff’s Claim, noting that there was “no prospect” that the Claim could be salvaged by way of a further amendment.View CanLII Details