MCNEIL v DUGGAN, 2014 ABQB 659
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
The Plaintiffs brought several claims against the Defendants in relation to an alleged wrongful dismissal. The Defendants applied to strike the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68. At the outset of the Application, Master Hanebury dismissed the claim of Ms. Mitchell, one of the Plaintiffs, since she admitted during argument that she had no claim.
The Defendants argued that the test under Rule 3.68 to strike a Claim was whether it was “plain and obvious or beyond reasonable doubt” that the Claim could not succeed. The Defendants argued that this test was met because the Court had no jurisdiction to consider the Claims. Master Hanebury considered prior case law, and held that the remaining Plaintiff’s Claims were within the exclusive jurisdictions of the Canada Human Rights Tribunal or other statutory bodies. Thus, the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff’s Claims. The Statement of Claim was dismissed.View CanLII Details