Kathryn Elaine Kirkpatrick

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process.

The plaintiff argued the defendant lacked standing due to alleged default and that the motion was not brought promptly.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the defendant was not in default and could bring the motion.

The court held the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and duplicated earlier pleadings previously struck as abusive.

The pleadings were struck without leave to amend and the defendant was awarded $5,000 in costs.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion alleging contempt by the defendants for failing to comply with prior procedural directions, seeking to strike an affidavit sworn by defence counsel, remove the defendants’ law firm due to an alleged conflict of interest, and compel disclosure based on a prior criminal court proceeding.

The court held that the defendants’ failure to comply with earlier procedural directions resulted from oversight rather than deliberate or calculated disobedience and therefore did not constitute contempt.

The court rejected the alleged conflict of interest, finding the plaintiff failed to establish that any confidential consultation with the defendants’ law firm had occurred.

The court further held that any disclosure obligations arising from the earlier criminal proceeding had expired when that prosecution ended and were not binding on the defendants in the civil action.

The motion was dismissed and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.