David H. Elman

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' Response to Demand for Particulars and portions of their Reply.

The plaintiffs had previously been denied leave to amend their statement of claim to add causes of action relating to events in 2008 and 2009, with the court finding those claims were not already pleaded.

The plaintiffs subsequently attempted to assert in their particulars and reply that the original claim did include those causes of action.

The court granted the defendants' motion, holding that the plaintiffs were bound by the prior final decisions under the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process.

Self-represented plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim alleging negligent investigation, Charter breaches, abuse of authority, and related torts arising from police searches of two residential properties.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the pleading as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being deficient in particulars.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considered whether the proposed amendments disclosed viable causes of action and whether certain claims were statute-barred.

Most claims were struck for failure to plead essential elements, being statute-barred, or disclosing no cause of action.

Limited claims relating to negligent investigation and misfeasance in public office concerning a March 22, 2012 search were permitted to proceed with further amendments, while additional particulars were required for certain Charter s. 8 claims.