MANSON (ESTATE) v OBSIDIAN ENERGY INC, 2020 ABQB 370
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
In April of 2018, the Plaintiff, Scott Manson (“Mr. Manson”), acting for himself and as the self-appointed representative for the Estate of his mother, Melba Manson (the “Estate”), commenced an Action against the Defendants (the “Claim”). The Defendants applied to strike the Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68.
Hopkins J. found that the allegations in the Claim could not be readily summarized, nor were the details particularly relevant to His Lordship’s decision. Justice Hopkins emphasized that pursuant to Rule 3.68, a pleading may be struck out in whole or in part if, among other things: (1) the Court has no jurisdiction; (2) the pleading discloses no reasonable claim or defence; and/or (3) the pleading is “frivolous, irrelevant or improper” or “an abuse of process.”
Justice Hopkins found that the allegations in the Claim were simply too vague, ill-defined, and generally amounted to little more than bald allegations. His Lordship noted that the Defendants were not in a position to make any meaningful response to the allegations in the Claim. Accordingly, His Lordship concluded that the Claim was futile, an abusive proceeding, and, in accordance with Rule 3.68, struck the Claim entirely.View CanLII Details