Roelf A. M. Swart

The defendant insurer sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The underlying action arose from allegations that the insurer improperly required the plaintiff to pursue Canada Pension disability benefits and forced him into a collateral agreement, resulting in legal costs and damages.

The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate conflicting authority or provide good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision.

Accepting the pleadings as true, the claim raised issues relating to contractual obligations, potential unjust enrichment, and alleged bad faith.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The defendant, Manulife, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b), arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff, who was receiving long-term disability benefits, successfully appealed a denial of CPP disability benefits using a lawyer, and sought to deduct his legal fees from the retroactive CPP amount owed to Manulife as an overpayment.

The plaintiff pleaded breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and bad faith.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's claims, including differing interpretations of the contract and unjust enrichment, would fail.