The Applicant and Respondent were engaged in various legal disputes over trademarks due to their similar names. The Applicants applied to strike or, in the alternative, summarily dismiss the Respondents’ Amended Statement of Claim.

Rule 3.68 provides that a claim or part of a claim may be struck if it discloses no reasonable claim. Rule 7.3 provides that a claim or part of a claim may be subject to Summary Judgment if it discloses no claim or no merit to a claim. The Court noted that, “[s]ummary judgment is distinct from the striking of pleadings. A motion for summary judgment may succeed notwithstanding that the matter did not meet the prerequisites that would allow the pleadings to be struck.” Generally, if a Defence is filed in an Action, this means that the pleadings raise factual issues and that the Rule to strike pleadings cannot be used. When that happens, Summary Judgment is an alternative that may be considered.

The challenge under Rule 3.68 was focused on jurisdictional issues. The Court found that many of the trademark claims were not within its jurisdiction and were matters over which the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction. As such, part of the Amended Statement of Claim was struck pursuant to Rule 3.68.

The challenge under Rule 7.3 was focused on limitations. The Court found that, as more than two years had passed since the Respondents discovered the wrongful conduct, the claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12.