The court considered a motion by the defendants to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim, which alleged a conspiracy by the defendants to cause the plaintiff to lose his business and property through the misuse of regulatory and legal proceedings under the Retirement Homes Act, 2010.
The court found that most of the plaintiff’s claims were barred as an abuse of process, collateral attack, or because they relied on inadmissible evidence under the Act.
The court also found that the claims did not properly plead bad faith or conspiracy with sufficient particulars, and that the statutory immunity provisions protected the defendants for actions taken in good faith.
The statement of claim was struck in its entirety, with leave to amend denied.
