Canada Case Law

Akemaru v. Vancouver Community College

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The petition was struck because the substantive discrimination complaints fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and cannot be the subject of common‑law judicial review, and the remaining challenged acts (the interim Feedback Response and internal Investigation Findings) were internal, non‑state, and non‑final administrative actions not amenable to judicial review; accordingly the petition disclosed no reasonable claim and constituted an abuse of process under Rule 9-5.

Source excerpt

• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings
• Jurisdiction of human rights tribunal
• Duty to accommodate
• Procedural fairness
• State‑action requirement for judicial review
• Abuse of process

Read case analysis

Sanovest Holdings Ltd. v. Matthews

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Equitable Compensation Claim was not struck: it is not plain and obvious that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action because the interpretive question on the scope of s.150(2)(c) is complex, there is no definitive authority precluding an equitable compensation remedy under the disclosable interest regime, factual findings (including on profits and reliance on the settlement holdback) are required, and striking the claim would risk defeating the remedial and deterrence purposes of the BCA and equitable remedies; accordingly the Rule 9-5(1)(a) application is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Disclosable interests (bca part 5)
• Derivative actions and leave requirements
• Equitable compensation
• Accounting for profits
• Oppression remedies
• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings

Read case analysis

Humphrey v. B.L. Resort Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The ANOCC is overly verbose and improperly pleads evidence, rendering it embarrassing or scandalous under R.9-5(1)(b) and (c); however, because the attribution principle articulated in Scott v. Golden Oaks introduces context‑dependent discretion as to imputing a directing mind's knowledge to a corporation, it is not plain and obvious that H6's claims are statute‑barred and therefore those claims cannot be dismissed under R.9-5(1)(a); the appropriate remedy is to stay the action and require the plaintiffs (Mr. Humphrey and H6) to file a further amended notice of civil claim that complies with…

Source excerpt

• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings
• Pleadings content r.3-1 and r.3-7
• Innuendo in defamation r.3-7(21)(a)
• Limitation act discoverability and suspension
• Attribution of knowledge to corporations (scott v. golden oaks)

Read case analysis

Shehzad v. Langara College

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The pleaded facts made it plain and obvious that the dispute arose from the appellant’s employment and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the collective agreement; accordingly the civil claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and, as an abuse of process, could be struck without leave to amend; denial of leave to amend was a proper exercise of judicial discretion because there was no prospect of reframing a claim outside the collective agreement’s scope.

Source excerpt

• Collective agreement jurisdiction
• Abuse of process
• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings
• Leave to amend discretion
• Invasion of privacy
• Defamation

Read case analysis

Bonner v. Whitelaw Twining LLP

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck an amended notice of civil claim against opposing counsel, holding the pleaded allegations were barred by litigation immunity and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

• Absolute privilege
• Litigation immunity
• Duty of care to opposing parties
• Spoliation of evidence
• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings
• Abuse of process

Read case analysis

Banni v. Coast Foundation Society (1974) (Coast Mental Health)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed the claims against BC Housing, struck most of the constitutional challenge as moot, and allowed only limited claims against Coast to be amended.

• Transitional housing
• Residential tenancy act s.4(f)
• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings
• Rule 9-6 summary judgment
• Breach of contract
• Duty of good faith

Read case analysis

Bruchet v. British Columbia (Royal Canadian Mounted Police, West Vancouver)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck a petition challenging a Mental Health Act detention, denied a further adjournment, and dismissed the claims without leave to amend.

• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings
• Mootness
• Standing
• Opca (organized pseudo-legal commercial argument)
• Mental health certification
• Public interest standing

Read case analysis

Lu v. Dentons Canada LLP

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On a Rule 9-5(1)(a) application, the court struck the amended notice of civil claim against Dentons Canada LLP and Trustee Jordan Schultz for failure to plead material facts supporting breach of trust.

• Breach of trust
• Pleading sufficiency
• Constructive knowledge
• Trustee de son tort
• Lawyer trust accounts
• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings

Read case analysis

Jonckeau v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck a Charter-based claim over out-of-province health funding, holding the pleadings did not disclose a reasonable s. 7 claim and no leave to amend was granted.

• Section 7 charter
• Positive obligations to provide health funding
• Out-of-province medical funding
• Medical wait lists and triage
• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings
• Section-7-charter

Read case analysis

Skylite Building Maintenance Ltd. v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court struck and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim against the Workers’ Compensation Board, finding the action barred by s. 332 of the Workers Compensation Act.

• Statutory immunity
• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings
• Vexatious litigant
• Malicious prosecution
• Contempt and injunctions
• Restoration of dissolved corporation

Read case analysis