The Respondent initiated a Class Action against the governments of Canada and Alberta (the “Applicants”), alleging mishandling of the Covid-19 vaccination program. The Applicants sought to strike the Action under Rule 3.68, arguing the claims were bound to fail as they did not meet legal requirements.

The Court declined to permit the Applicants to bring a pre-certification Application to strike the Action, and ordered that the Application to Strike to be heard at or concurrently with the Certification Application.

Dilts J. noted that, in the context of class proceedings, the decision whether to hear an Application to Strike before the Certification Application is a discretionary one. The exercise of that discretion is to be guided by the public policy purposes underpinning class proceedings, namely, access to justice, behaviour modification, and judicial economy.

Justice Dilts found that hearing a pre-certification Application to Strike would not conserve resources or dispose of the entire Action against both Applicants. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial economy and the risk of duplicating efforts if the issues are addressed twice. The different but interconnected roles of Alberta and Canada in the vaccination program suggested that interrelated issues should be heard together. Dilts J. also noted the potential for delays if Appeals are pursued. Ultimately, the Court concluded that addressing the issues at the certification hearing would be more efficient and fair.