RAVENBERG SCHEELAR v MILNE, 2019 ABCA 383
MARTIN, KHULLAR AND ANTONIO JJA
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)
The Appellant had applied to strike the Respondents’ Statement of Claim (the “Claim”) pursuant to Rule 3.68(2), and to dismiss the Claim pursuant to Rule 7.3. The Appellant had been successful in Masters Chambers, but that Decision was overturned by a Justice. The Appellant then appealed the Decision not to strike the Claim (but not the Decision respecting summarily dismissing the Claim) to the Court of Appeal.
The Claim related to alleged breaches of duty of care by the Appellant. The Appellant argued that he owed no duty of care; that the Action was an attempt to rectify a custody, support and property agreement that had been the subject of previous Court proceedings; and that the Claim should be struck as an improper collateral attack on a previous Court Decision.
The Court upheld the Decision below, found that there was not “no chance of success”, and that it was possible for a duty of care to be owed to the Plaintiffs. As such the Appeal was dismissed.View CanLII Details