Saikh Faruque

Supplementary reasons regarding costs and a timetable following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the defendant's statement of defence.

The court ordered no costs for the motion, finding that while the defendant was successful, the plaintiff's motion was not unreasonable given the poor drafting of the statement of defence.

The court also set a timetable limited to the defendant's intended motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike various paragraphs of the defendant's fresh as amended statement of defence.

The plaintiff argued the paragraphs did not comply with the rules of pleading and were irrelevant, repetitive, and improper.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned paragraphs generally complied with the rules of pleading and that a pleading must be read generously and not subjected to a standard of perfection.