In a proposed class proceeding, the defendants sought to schedule a pleadings motion to strike certain claims and dismiss the action against several defendants before the certification motion.
The court considered the principles governing sequencing of motions in class proceedings and the factors identified in prior authority regarding whether preliminary motions should precede certification.
Applying those factors, the court held that the pleadings motion would not dispose of the entire proceeding or substantially narrow the issues and could generate interlocutory appeals and delay.
Judicial economy and efficiency favoured hearing the pleadings motion together with the certification motion.
The defendants were therefore directed to deliver their Statement of Defence, without prejudice to bringing their proposed motion later.
