BURRIS v DYCK

The parties, who were divorced, shared a child. After the child allegedly raised concerns about the Plaintiff’s conduct with the grandmother, the allegations were reported to police and Child and Family Services. Both agencies determined that no further steps were required. The Plaintiff subsequently commenced an Action alleging libel, slander, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional harm, parental alienation, false allegations, breach of Court Orders, harassment, and restrictive gatekeeping.

The Defendants applied for Summary Judgment under Rule 7.3. In the alternative, the Defendants sought to strike the Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68(2)(b), or to dismiss the Action for inordinate delay under Rule 4.31.

The Court held that the Statement of Claim did not disclose a reasonable claim within the meaning of Rule 3.68. Justice Lema found that the Statement of Claim listed categories of alleged wrongdoing but failed to set out the material facts, as required by Rule 13.6. Lema J. emphasized that the Plaintiff was required to plead facts, not evidence, and noted that bald assertions could not support the causes of action advanced. Justice Lema further observed that the Plaintiff failed to plead particulars necessary to sustain a defamation claim, including the specific defamatory words, their publication, and resulting harm, contrary to Rule 13.7. The Court therefore struck the Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68.

Having reached that conclusion, Justice Lema stated that it was unnecessary to determine the alternative requests for Summary Judgment or dismissal for inordinate delay. The Court awarded Schedule C costs to the Defendants, and Lema J. seized himself of further Applications in the Action.