Rule Details
DYNAFLEX PIPE LTD v HOVE, 2026 ABKB 602
Rules Discussed
- Rule 3.68 Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
Case Summary
This decision arose from an Application by one Defendant to strike the Action against it, without leave to amend, on the basis that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable claim pursuant to Rule 3.68(2)(b). The Plaintiff alleged that several related Defendants had participated in the misuse of confidential and proprietary business information and asserted claims including conspiracy and breach of confidence. The Defendant argued that the pleading improperly grouped it together with other entities and failed to plead sufficient material facts concerning its own involvement.
Applications Judge Summers confirmed that, pursuant to Rule 3.68(3), no evidence could be considered on an Application under Rule 3.68(2)(b). The governing test was whether it was plain and obvious, assuming the pleaded facts to be true, that the pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The pleaded facts were to be accepted as true except where they were speculative, patently ridiculous, or incapable of proof.
The Court held that grouping multiple Defendants together was not necessarily improper and that the adequacy of the pleading depended on the nature of the claims and the information reasonably available to the Plaintiff at the pleading stage. Claims such as conspiracy and breach of confidence frequently involved secret conduct and information primarily within the knowledge of the alleged wrongdoers. A Plaintiff therefore could not always be expected to plead detailed particulars of each Defendant’s involvement at the outset.
Applying these principles, Applications Judge Summers found that grouping the related Defendants together was not inappropriate. The Court relied on the nature of the conspiracy and breach of confidence claims, the Plaintiff’s alleged inability to obtain particulars because some of the conduct had occurred in secret, and uncertainty concerning the status and identity of certain related entities during the relevant period. The Court therefore dismissed the Application to strike.