Kristin AuCoin

The defendant, a court-appointed receiver, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action against it.

The plaintiffs had commenced the action without obtaining leave of the court or the receiver's written consent, contrary to section 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and prior court orders.

The court granted the motion, holding that obtaining leave is a strict condition precedent to bringing an action against a receiver, and dismissed the claims against the receiver with costs.

The respondents, Twitter, brought a motion to strike the applicants' notice of application under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The applicants alleged breach of contract after Twitter refused to sell them advertising space, arguing the refusal violated the duty of good faith, was unconscionable, and breached public policy informed by Charter values of freedom of expression.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants pleaded sufficient facts to state causes of action and that it was not plain and obvious the claims would fail.