Multiple parties brought Applications to strike Pleadings for deficiencies, pursuant to Rule 3.68. One such Pleading was a Statement of Claim, in which the Plaintiff failed to connect the facts pleaded with the causes of action alleged. While both were provided, the Plaintiff failed to explain how the facts supported each alleged cause of action.

Justice Mah provided an overview of the jurisprudence on striking a Pleading under Rule 3.68. Having regard to the case law, Mah J. concluded that if there are sufficient facts pleaded to support a cause of action, it should not be struck. Where some facts are missing, the Court could order particulars or amendments. Where there are no facts pled at all which support a legal element of a cause of action, it may be properly struck out.

The Defendant argued that the claim was also barred by operation of the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12. The Plaintiff argued that a limitations defence is properly the subject of an Application for Summary Dismissal, pursuant to Rule 7.3, rather than an Application to strike, pursuant to Rule 3.68. Justice Mah rejected that argument, stating that if there are no discoverability concerns on the facts pled, the expiry of the limitation period may be patent on the fact of the Pleadings and may be susceptible to an Application to strike. However, in this case, the allegations were not time-barred on their face, and therefore would be properly the subject of a Summary Dismissal Application.

The Plaintiff further argued that the Application to strike was barred because the Defendants had each filed a Statement of Defence. The Court rejected this argument, noting that each Defendant alleged in their Statement of Defence that the Statement of Claim disclosed no valid cause of action.

In reviewing the Statement of Claim, Justice Mah found that claims which had no basis in law could not be fixed through amendment and were therefore struck. Similarly, claims for which an element could not be proven through amendments to provide further detail were struck. Finally, for claims where an absolute defence existed, the claim was struck.