The Appellant, Vanmaele, appealed a decision of the Case Management Justice which struck the Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68(2) and dismissed the Appellant’s Application for Security for Costs or advanced Costs pursuant to Rule 4.22. The Case Management Justice held that there was no merit to the Appellant’s Statement of Claim, and there was evidence that the Respondent could pay a Costs award.

The Appellant argued that the Statement of Claim should not have been struck until after Questioning was completed, and that striking a Statement of Claim before Questioning is completed creates an inconsistency between Rule 3.68, which sets out when a Court may strike pleadings, and Rule 3.25, which sets out the requirements for the contents of a Statement of Claim. The Appellant submitted that the Rules do not require that a Statement of Claim be supported or proven at the pleadings stage, and that such support or proof occurs during Questioning. The Court of Appeal noted that the Appellant’s interpretation of the Rules disregarded the distinction between an Application to strike a Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68, as Rule 3.68(3) provides that no evidence may be submitted on an Application made under Rule 3.68(2)(b), and an Application for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 7.3. The Court also noted that Rule 3.25(b) requires that a Statement of Claim state the claim and the basis for it which requires that material facts are plead that establish a legal cause of action. The Court held that the Case Management Justice had taken a generous approach to interpreting the facts set out in the Statement of Claim, and was correct in striking the Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68. The Court of Appeal also held that the Case Management Justice was correct in dismissing the Application for advanced Costs or Security for Costs. Vanmaele’s Appeal was dismissed.