In a proposed class proceeding brought by franchisees against a franchisor and alleged franchisor’s associates, the defendants moved under Rules 21.01(b), 25.06, and 25.11 to strike portions of the amended statement of claim.
The claims alleged failures to provide proper disclosure documents under franchise legislation, breaches of the statutory duty of fair dealing, unlawful conversion of exclusive territories to non‑exclusive territories, interference with franchisees’ right to associate, and entitlement to injunctive relief and rescission.
The court held that although the pleading was lengthy and complex, it adequately disclosed material facts and gave sufficient notice of the case the defendants had to meet.
Many of the defendants’ objections were found to raise substantive defences or merits issues better addressed in a statement of defence, summary judgment motion, or at trial rather than on a pleadings motion.
The court concluded that the defendants had not established a basis to strike the impugned paragraphs.
