Educational Testing Service v. Maple Leaf International Consulting Inc

Educational Testing Service v. Maple Leaf International Consulting Inc

The prothonotary's order is upheld: the counterclaim was struck because it plainly disclosed no reasonable cause of action within the Court's jurisdiction and therefore the judge would exercise discretion de novo and dismiss it; the words struck from the statement of defence were properly struck as improper or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 FCT 1161
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: Educational Testing Service; Appellant/defendant: Maple Leaf International Consulting, Inc.; Appellant/defendant: Sundaram ("Sonny") Pitchumani
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Prothonotary Order / Motion Under Rule 369 to Review Associate Senior Prothonotary Giles' Order of Sept 10, 2001
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in all respects.
Legal Topics
Striking Pleadings, Motion to Strike, Standard of Review, Fresh Evidence, Court Rules Interpretation
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Costs Pleadings Appeals Striking Pleadings Motion to Strike Standard of Review Fresh Evidence +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Educational Testing Service

Respondent/plaintiff

Maple Leaf International Consulting, Inc.

Appellant/defendant

Sundaram ("Sonny") Pitchumani

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Prothonotary Order / Motion Under Rule 369 to Review Associate Senior Prothonotary Giles' Order of Sept 10, 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prothonotary's order striking portions of the statement of defence and the counterclaim should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the individual defendant's counterclaim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the appeal could be decided in writing under Rule 369 despite Rule 51

Ratio Decidendi

The prothonotary's order is upheld: the counterclaim was struck because it plainly disclosed no reasonable cause of action within the Court's jurisdiction and therefore the judge would exercise discretion de novo and dismiss it; the words struck from the statement of defence were properly struck as improper or scandalous; the costs award of $750 and its timing were within the prothonotary's discretion; the appeal is dismissed in all respects and costs are awarded to the Plaintiff to be taxed on the ordinary scale and payable in any event of the cause.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in all respects.

Orders

  • Dismissal of Appellants/Defendants' appeal by way of motion
  • Order striking the individual Defendant's counterclaim in its entirety