The Defendant brought an Application to amend a Counterclaim. The Plaintiff brought a cross-Application for an Order striking the Counterclaim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action pursuant to Rule 3.68.

Master Robertson found that an Application to amend should be heard and decided before an Application to strike or dismiss under Rule 3.68. The Plaintiffs argued that the proposed amendments were hopeless. Master Robertson, following the “classic rule” in Balm v 3512061 Canada Ltd., 2003 ABCA 98, allowed the amendments, and granted the Defendant’s Application.

The Counterclaim asserted that the original Statement of Claim was vexatious, frivolous, without merit and amounted to conduct that was oppressive. The amendments to the Counterclaim added details about the Plaintiff’s actions and conduct. Master Robertson dismissed the Plaintiff’s Application to strike the Counterclaim.