Melissa Arruda

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to strike portions of the statement of claim, including claims against an individual corporate officer and a claim for oppression under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The action alleged that a former corporate partner withdrew from a partnership while its share capital account reflected a negative balance arising from partnership drawings, resulting in claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and oppression.

The court applied the stringent “plain and obvious” test for striking pleadings and held that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment disclosed reasonable causes of action and should proceed.

However, the oppression remedy claim lacked sufficient material facts and was struck with leave to amend.

Certain paragraphs referencing settlement discussions were also struck as subject to settlement privilege.

The defendant, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of duty of fairness, defamation, negligence, and fraudulent concealment arising from a tendering process.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding the duty of fairness and limitation period issues, finding that the voluminous and conflicting evidence required a full trial with viva voce evidence.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the defamation claim, as the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence of the alleged defamatory statements.