|
Civil Litigation - Pleadings, Narrowing (by any Party) - General [R21.01(1)]
COMMENT
While R21 and R25 motions are most commonly used in actions (ie. lawsuits), they are also available to applications, including judicial review applications by virtue of R14.09:An originating process that is not a pleading may be struck out or amended in the same manner as a pleading. See Civil Litigation Dicta - Applications - Striking.
CASES
. Resler v. Anglin
In Resler v. Anglin (SCC, 2026) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a defendant's SCC appeal, this brought against an Alberta CA ruling that allowed an appeal where the Alberta QB struck the plaintiff's "amended statement of claim in its entirety, finding that it amounted to an abuse of process, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and, in any case, the allegations had no reasonable chance of success given Resler’s common law and statutory immunities".
Here the Supreme Court of Canada court considers principles for striking pleadings, albeit here in an Alberta legal context:[73] On a motion to strike under r. 3.68, the pleadings must be read generously and without any assessment of their merits (R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45, at para. 21; Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, 2011 SCC 24, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 261, at para. 95). Claims should only be assessed for legal sufficiency and the facts pleaded must be accepted as true (Imperial Tobacco, at para. 22). As r. 3.68(3) sets out, no evidence is admissible on the motion. For the application to succeed, it must be plain and obvious that the pleadings do not disclose a reasonable claim (Imperial Tobacco, at para. 17; Elder Advocates, at para. 20). The only limitation on this principle is that the claim must clearly plead the facts, rather than presenting abstract speculation or facts that are manifestly unprovable (Imperial Tobacco, at para. 22). However, an application to strike is not an assessment of the merits of the claim, and if the claim is properly pleaded it should not be struck even if it appears to be “dubious” (Elder Advocates, at para. 95, quoting Elder Advocates of Alberta Society v. Alberta, 2008 ABQB 490, 453 A.R. 1, at para. 443).
[74] Importantly for the purposes of this appeal, the approach to a striking motion must be flexible and allow a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial (Imperial Tobacco, at para. 21). . Derenzis v. Ontario
In Derenzis v. Ontario (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal partially allowed an appeal, this brought against a number of different R21 striking pleading grounds in an MVA tort context.
Here the court considers the SOR for R21 motions to strike pleadings, here in an auto insurance SABS context:[12] Whether or not a pleading discloses a reasonable cause of action is a question of law reviewable for correctness: Kang v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2013 ONCA 118, 303 O.A.C. 64, at para. 27. However, a decision denying leave to amend is a discretionary one entitled to deference on appeal: Darmar Farms Inc. v. Syngenta Canada Inc., 2019 ONCA 789, 148 O.R. (3d) 115, at para. 30. . Palmer v. Teva Canada Limited [SOR]
In Palmer v. Teva Canada Limited (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a lower court dismissal of a class action certification motion.
Here the court identifies the SOR for the certification element of 'disclosing a cause of action' [CPA s.5(1)(a)] as correctness (ie. error of law):[29] The standard of review applicable to a motion judge’s determination of law that a claim discloses no reasonable cause of action is correctness: Bowman v. Ontario, 2022 ONCA 477, 162 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 26. . Peerenboom v. Peerenboom [SOR]
In Peerenboom v. Peerenboom (Ont CA, 2020) the Court of Appeal considered an issue of striking pleadings:[47] A decision to strike pleadings and to deny participation at trial is entitled to deference if exercised on proper principles and in the absence of a material misapprehension of the evidence: Purcaru v. Purcaru, 2010 ONCA 92, 75 R.F.L. (6th) 33, at paras. 49-50; Chiaramonte v. Chiaramonte, 2013 ONCA 641, 370 D.L.R. (4th) 328, at para. 33. Robert has failed to demonstrate any such error here. . Brown v. Williams
In Brown v. Williams (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the urgency of the remedy of striking pleadings:[6] In any event, the order granted is not warranted by the prevailing circumstances. Striking a party’s pleading is not an avenue of relief of first resort: Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Torroni, 2009 ONCA 85, 94 O.R. (3d) 614, at para. 35. ...
|
