The defendants, a treating psychologist and a children's aid society, brought motions under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.
The plaintiffs' action arose from a child protection investigation and criminal charges based on allegations of abuse made by a child previously adopted by the plaintiffs.
The court struck the claim against the psychologist without leave to amend, finding she owed no duty of care to the parents of her patient and was statutorily obligated to report suspected abuse.
The court also struck the adult plaintiffs' claims in negligence and various intentional torts against the children's aid society defendants, finding no duty of care was owed to the parents during a child protection investigation.
Leave to amend was granted for claims of misfeasance in public office and Charter damages.
