3 total
The court struck the claim against individual corporate officers because it failed to plead facts establishing personal liability independent of their corporate roles.
The individual defendants, officers and directors of BMW Canada Inc., brought a motion to strike the Amended Statement of Claim against them, arguing it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
The plaintiffs alleged various torts including negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional interference with economic relations.
The court granted the motion, finding that the pleading failed to establish a basis for personal liability against the individual defendants, as their alleged actions were within their corporate capacity, and the elements for the pleaded torts were not properly established.
Leave to amend was granted, and costs were awarded to the individual defendants.
Costs decision adjourned pending anticipated Rule 59.06 motion affecting struck claim.
Following a Rule 21.01(1) motion to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy and misappropriation of funds, the court previously struck the claim entirely against one defendant while granting leave to amend as against other moving defendants.
The parties provided costs submissions.
The plaintiff indicated its intention to bring a Rule 59.06 motion seeking reconsideration and leave to amend the pleadings against the defendant whose claim had been struck.
The court held that the differing procedural positions of the defendants could affect the proper assessment of costs and that determining costs immediately risked a potentially inequitable or duplicative award.
The court therefore adjourned the determination of costs until after the anticipated Rule 59.06 motion.
Civil conspiracy pleadings struck for failing to plead essential elements.
The moving defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy and knowing receipt.
The plaintiff alleged that certain defendants participated in a scheme involving inflated pricing of asbestos encasement products supplied to a hospital project, resulting in breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties.
The court reviewed the elements required to plead civil conspiracy and knowing receipt and concluded that the pleadings lacked essential factual allegations supporting either cause of action.
The allegations were largely speculative and failed to establish concerted unlawful conduct or knowledge of misappropriated trust funds.
The court struck the impugned pleadings, granted leave to amend for most defendants, and struck the claim entirely against one defendant without leave to amend.
