The defendants brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 25.11, arguing they were irrelevant and scandalous.
The plaintiff's claim was based on the common employer doctrine, alleging the defendants were his employers despite his contract being with an insolvent related corporation.
The court struck paragraphs solely related to the plaintiff's employment qualifications and performance, finding them irrelevant to the common employer determination.
However, the court allowed most other impugned paragraphs to stand, including those detailing corporate structure, operations, and post-termination events leading to the original employer's insolvency, deeming them relevant to the common employer analysis and the potential for unfairness to the employee.
