Sarah Jones

The defendant university brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiff's fresh as amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff, a former medical resident, sued the university for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging the residency program was substandard and failed to prepare him for his specialist licensing exams.

The court found that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded the nature and source of the contract, as well as the vulnerability and reliance necessary for a fiduciary duty claim.

The court held that the claim was novel but arguable, and dismissed the motion to strike.

The defendants, Lakehead University and Gordon Hayman, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff, a PhD graduate, sued the university and his professor for breach of contract and negligence, alleging unreasonable delays in dissertation review.

The court granted the motion, striking the claim without leave to amend, on the basis that disputes between students and universities regarding academic matters are not subject to breach of contract or tort claims.

The plaintiff, a former nursing student, sued the defendants for damages after they falsely accused her of academic fraud.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, related to an academic matter, and was an abuse of process.

The court found that while the university has broad discretion in academic matters, this does not extend to the negligent performance of an internal investigation or intentional torts.

The court struck the claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, bad faith, and breach of privacy due to pleading deficiencies, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim.

Following a successful motion for leave to appeal an order refusing to strike conspiracy claims alleged to merge with fraud claims, the moving defendants sought $20,052.74 in costs.

The court considered the reasonableness of the time spent on research, drafting materials, and waiting time for the motion to be heard.

The judge held that the requested amount was excessive, particularly given that much of the work had already been completed for the initial motion and that waiting time in court should not generally be borne by the losing party.

Balancing the complexity of the legal issue with proportionality considerations, the court awarded a reduced amount.

Costs were fixed at $9,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order refusing to strike a conspiracy claim pleaded alongside fraud in an action by an insurer alleging fraudulent statutory accident benefit claims.

The defendants argued that the conspiracy claim merged with the underlying fraud and was redundant.

The court reviewed conflicting authorities regarding the doctrine of merger at the pleadings stage, including cases distinguishing between conspiracy based on a predominant intent to injure and conspiracy based on unlawful means.

The motion judge had declined to strike the claim and left the issue of merger to trial.

The court found reason to doubt the correctness of that decision and held that the broader question of whether merger can ever be applied at the pleadings stage was an issue of general importance.

Leave to appeal was therefore granted.

The moving defendants brought a motion to strike out the plaintiff insurers' claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to submit fraudulent medical treatment and assessment claims.

The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded the material facts for fraudulent misrepresentation against the individual defendants, who could be held personally liable for tortious acts.

The court also declined to strike the conspiracy claims, holding that the applicability of the merger doctrine should be determined at trial and that the claims were properly based on unlawful acts under the Insurance Act and Criminal Code.

The motion was dismissed, though two plaintiffs were ordered to amend their pleadings to specify special damages for conspiracy.

The defendants brought a motion to strike a self-represented plaintiff’s claim arising from repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain a family medicine residency position.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, bad faith, unequal treatment, and Charter violations after being denied interviews and admission to residency programs.

The court held the action was an attempt to re‑litigate issues previously determined in multiple proceedings and was barred by cause of action estoppel and abuse of process.

The pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action and failed to establish viable claims in negligence, contract, or discrimination.

The court also held that academic admissions decisions fall within universities’ broad discretion and are reviewable, if at all, by judicial review rather than civil action.