Poirier v. Community Futures Development Corporation

Poirier v. Community Futures Development Corporation

The Court of Appeal held the Chambers judge erred in striking parts of the statement of claim under Rule 19(24) by improperly weighing evidence and applying a test of likelihood of success; the pleadings, properly confined to their allegations and allowing for amendment, disclosed triable issues in respect of the pleaded torts and therefore the original unamended statement of claim must be restored; the separate Chambers decision refusing joinder was not appealed and remains final.

Citation
2005 BCCA 169
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Fred Poirier; Respondent / Defendant: Community Futures Development Corporation of Mt. Waddington
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Civil Tort Action (strike‑out Under Supreme Court Rules) / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons on Rule 19(24) Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original unamended statement of claim restored; Chambers judge's strike‑out set aside; joinder refusal untouched; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Intentional Interference With Economic Relations, Malicious Prosecution / False Accusation, Conversion / Improper Seizure, Strike‑out Under Rule 19(24), Pleading Amendments, Limitation Period
Source Language
English
Tort Civil Procedure Appeal Intentional Interference With Economic Relations Malicious Prosecution / False Accusation Conversion / Improper Seizure Strike‑out Under Rule 19(24) Pleading Amendments +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fred Poirier

Appellant / Plaintiff

Community Futures Development Corporation of Mt. Waddington

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Civil Tort Action (strike‑out Under Supreme Court Rules) / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons on Rule 19(24) Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action under Rule 19(24)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded causes of action (intentional interference with economic relations, malicious prosecution, seizure of equipment) raised triable issues
  3. 3 Whether the Chambers judge properly considered affidavit evidence and applied the strike‑out test

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held the Chambers judge erred in striking parts of the statement of claim under Rule 19(24) by improperly weighing evidence and applying a test of likelihood of success; the pleadings, properly confined to their allegations and allowing for amendment, disclosed triable issues in respect of the pleaded torts and therefore the original unamended statement of claim must be restored; the separate Chambers decision refusing joinder was not appealed and remains final.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original unamended statement of claim restored; Chambers judge's strike‑out set aside; joinder refusal untouched; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Allow appeal and restore the original unamended statement of claim
  • Set aside the Chambers judge's order striking portions of the statement of claim under Rule 19(24)