Canada Case Law

Keltic (Prior) Development Limited Partnership v. Van Renesse Investment Company Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck multiple portions of the amended response because, assuming the pleaded facts, they disclosed no reasonable defence, were irrelevant or prejudicial: commercial negotiation precluded contra proferentem arguments; indemnity and "as is" clauses did not permit contracting out of the EMA; a purchase agreement with an indemnity clause is not an insurance contract under the Insurance Act; limitation and offset defences were inadequately pleaded. The court refused to extend time to file the proposed counterclaim because the proposed claim was legally weak, materially different in sub…

Source excerpt

• Indemnity clause
• Contaminated site remediation
• Strike pleadings
• Counterclaim extension
• Contra proferentem
• Duty of utmost good faith

Read case analysis

British Columbia Athletic Commissioner v. Simon Fraser University

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal is allowed because the Athletic Commissioner Act and its regulations do not, expressly or by implication, create a private law duty of care to individual athletes, and SFU's amended third party notice fails to plead the material facts necessary to establish proximity (the key basis for a novel duty). Bare allegations that the regulator knew or ought to have known of contraventions are insufficient; therefore the third party notice is plain and obvious to fail and must be struck (without prejudice to SFU applying to refile if material facts are available).

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Negligence
• Strike pleadings
• Regulator liability
• Athletic regulation

Read case analysis

Kavanagh v. Barbeau

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the RTCC was unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or prejudicial because the contested allegations (including claims of tax evasion and deception by the deceased) were relevant to a bona fide defence that the deceased retained control and caused the companies' financial and tax problems; however, the court struck narrowly those broad, sweeping and undated allegations that alleged unspecified illegality or lifelong misconduct unconnected to the pleaded issues (paras. 7, 10 and 17) as confusing and potentially prejudicial, and granted leave to amen…

Source excerpt

• Strike pleadings
• Fiduciary duty breach
• Unjust enrichment
• Pleading sufficiency
• Allegations of tax evasion
• Relevance and prejudice in pleadings

Read case analysis

The Owners, Strata Plan 962 v. Rochette

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed and claim dismissed because it is a foundational rule that a party cannot recover the costs of the same proceeding as tort damages and there is no principled basis or pleaded category of recoverable pure economic loss to justify an exception; the chambers judge erred in failing to apply this rule and the restrictive principles governing pure economic loss.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Pure economic loss
• Costs as damages
• Strata council conflict of interest
• Strike pleadings
• Res judicata

Read case analysis

Rashid v. Rashid

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The defendant Sharmin Rashid had no legal or equitable interest in the property, the notice of civil claim contains no pleaded obligations or benefits attributable to her and does not properly plead inducing breach or wrongful interference, plaintiffs are bound by their prior admission that she had no interest, and on the evidence and pleadings it is manifestly clear there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to claims against her; accordingly the claims against Sharmin must be dismissed under Rule 9-6(1).

Source excerpt

• Specific performance
• Equitable trust
• Unjust enrichment
• Inducing breach of contract
• Wrongful interference with contractual relations
• Summary judgment

Read case analysis

Woodske v. Metzner

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck a self-represented plaintiff’s claim against opposing family-law counsel, finding no duty of care, absolute privilege, and no reasonable prospect of success.

• Strike pleadings
• Duty of care of opposing counsel
• Absolute privilege
• Abuse of process
• Costs
• Strike-pleadings

Read case analysis

Stenner v. Stenner

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court struck a family claim challenging a separation agreement, finding the pleading non-compliant, unsupported by admissible evidence, and time-barred.

• Separation agreement
• Notice of family claim
• Strike pleadings
• Limitation period under family law act s.198(3)
• Rules compliance (supreme court family rules)
• Capacity/mental competency

Read case analysis

Krishan v. Gus

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed the defendant’s application to strike a defamation claim, holding the pleaded words, occasion, and recipients were enough to meet the defamation pleading standard.

• Strike pleadings
• Reasonable cause of action
• Heightened pleading standard for defamation
• Costs
• Defamation
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Klassen v. Epp

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court awarded ordinary Scale B costs to the defendant after striking the claim, but refused special costs, personal costs against counsel, and sealed a confidential affidavit.

• Special costs
• Res judicata
• Strike pleadings
• Costs against counsel personally
• Sealing order
• Special-costs

Read case analysis

Luoy v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from an order striking defamation and negligence pleadings, affirming that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed.

• Strike pleadings
• Failure to disclose reasonable cause of action
• Publication element in defamation
• Leave to amend
• Costs
• Defamation

Read case analysis