Jeremy Lum-Danson

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion to amend its statement of claim against the defendant tenant, its corporate parent, and individual directors following the abandonment of a commercial lease.

The proposed amendments sought to pierce the corporate veil and allege that the corporate parent and individuals were the alter ego of the tenant.

The court denied the amendments relating to piercing the corporate veil, finding they lacked the requisite particulars and were mere 'window dressing' attempting to turn a breach of contract into a fraud claim.

However, the court allowed an amendment adding a claim under section 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, noting that its viability should not be determined at this preliminary stage.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike out three paragraphs of the defendants' Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, arguing they were scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The underlying action involved a dispute over a joint real estate venture and a Memorandum of Understanding.

The court declined to strike two paragraphs, finding them relevant to the issues of equity split and unconscionability.

However, the court struck out one paragraph alleging an anonymous threatening phone call, as it did not allege the call was made by the plaintiffs and was included solely to cast them in a bad light.