Keeler v. Proctor & Gamble Inc. Canada

Keeler v. Proctor & Gamble Inc. Canada Court Court of Appeal Date 1994-01-31 Citation 1994 NSCA 30 Docket CA 02950 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Chipman, David (Honourable Justice); Clarke, Lorne O. (Honourable Chief Justice); Pugsley, Ronald N. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content C.A. No. 02950 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Clarke, C.J.N.S.; Chipman and Pugsley, JJ.A. Cite as: Keeler v. Proctor & Gamble Inc. Canada, 1994 NSCA 30 BETWEEN: ) ) ELIZABETH A. KEELER ) Appellant in Person ) Appellant ) ) - and - ) ) YONG QUEK, President of ) PROCTOR & GAMBLE INC. CANADA ) ) J. David Connolly Respondent ) for the Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Appeal Heard: ) January 18, 1994 ) ) ) Judgment Delivered: ) January 31, 1994 THE COURT: The appeal is dismissed as per reasons for judgment of Clarke, C.J.N.S.; Chipman, J.A., and Pugsley, J.A. The reasons for judgment were delivered by the Court: The appellant commenced her action on August 31, 1993 against the respondents, Yong Quek, President of Proctor & Gamble Inc. Canada, as well as against Thomas Johnston, President of Kimberly Clark, T. W. Hanley, Product Safety Officer, and Sheila Donahue, Director of Product Safety, Department of Consumer Affairs. On September 23, 1993, on motion of Mr. Hanley and Ms. Donahue, the Statement of Claim against those two parties was struck out by Order of Kelly, J. pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 14.25(1)(a). This section reads: "14.25 (1) The court may at any stage of a proceeding order any pleading, affidavit or statement of facts, or anything therein, to be struck out or amended on the ground that, (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence;" On October 26, 1993, Goodfellow, J., on motion of the respondent, Yong Quek, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 14.25(1)(a) dismissed the action against the respondent. It is from this Order that the appellant asserts her appeal. All pleadings were prepared, and all court appearances were conducted by, the appellant in person. The only reference to the respondents in the documents filed by the appellant is a description of Yong Quek as President of Proctor & Gamble in the heading. No other reference, claim, or allegations are directed against him. It is not possible to determine from the face of the record what case the respondents have to answer, nor can it be determined what remedy is sought from them. Civil Procedure Rule 14.04 provides: "14.04 Every pleading shall contain a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, but not the evidence by which the facts are to be proved, and the statement shall be as brief as the nature of the case admits." Goodfellow, J., while acknowledging that a very liberal approach must be taken to pleadings commented: "The pleadings to a major extent are a statement of philosophy and expression of concern, real or imaginary, by (the appellant), but they do not disclose any claim against Yong Quek, President of Proctor & Gamble Inc. . . . " In our opinion, Goodfellow, J. has not erred in concluding that the documents filed by the appellant disclose "no reasonable cause of action". We would accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs in the amount of $300.00 granted to the respondent. Clarke, C.J.N.S. Chipman, J.A. Pugsley, J.A.