|
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
. 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. ...
|
