The moving defendants sought to strike the amended statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action arising from disciplinary proceedings and a trusteeship order involving the professional practice of a lawyer and sought extensive damages against the regulator, its employees, and media defendants.
The court held the pleading was rambling, vexatious, and failed to disclose reasonable causes of action.
Claims including defamation, malicious prosecution, and derivative Family Law Act damages were inadequately pleaded or legally barred.
The court further found the claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on prior disciplinary and court decisions and were barred by statutory immunity under the Law Society Act.
