The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The motion judge had dismissed the claim as incomprehensible and non-compliant with Rule 25.06.
The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge erred in applying Rule 2.1 as a substitute for addressing pleading defects, the appeal was dismissed on the substantive ground that the appellant lacked standing to advance the claim.
The claim concerned errors by lawyers retained by her fiancé and insurance payments owed to him.
Upon the fiancé's death in 2015, any such rights devolved to his estate, not to the appellant personally.
The appellant's assertion that she was the executor of a will was unsupported by evidence.
