Rina M. Li

The moving party (Ontario) sought an order that no costs be awarded for a motion to strike, while the responding parties (plaintiffs) sought $4,500 in costs.

The court noted that success on the motion was divided, as the plaintiffs' most recent claim was not struck, but Ontario had taken many steps to move the matter along in response to the plaintiffs' repeated amendments to their pleadings.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) and the principle that costs are normally not awarded where success is divided, the court ordered no costs.

The moving party, the Ontario Provincial Police, brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike out paragraphs of the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from an allegedly unlawful eviction overseen by the police, resulting in claims for misfeasance in public office and intimidation.

The court applied the test for striking pleadings, reading the facts generously, and concluded that the amended statement of claim disclosed reasonable causes of action.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.

The pleading asserted numerous allegations, including breach of contract, negligence, abuse of power, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder, but contained virtually no material facts supporting the legal elements of the alleged causes of action.

Applying the “plain and obvious” test from Hunt v Carey Canada Inc., the court held that the claim failed to plead the necessary material facts and was vague, unintelligible, and non‑compliant with the rules of pleading.

The court concluded the claim was devoid of a sustainable cause of action and could not be cured by amendment.

The statement of claim was therefore struck without leave to amend.