Federal court | Civil Procedure
COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS
Impugned portions of statement of claim little more than bald accusations
Defendants brought motion to strike out portions of amended statement of claim. Paragraphs were struck out without leave to amend. Plaintiffs did not seek leave to amend and there was nothing to suggest plaintiffs could establish scintilla of cause of action in relation to portions of claim that were struck out. Defendants’ motion was not premature. There was no obligation on defendants to demand particulars. Impugned portions of amended statement of claim was little more than bald accusations. Plaintiffs’ accusations against Minister of Foreign Affairs were nothing more than speculative allegations and conclusions unsupported by material facts. Claim did not disclose sufficient material facts to establish and support cause of action against Minister or how Minister could be vicariously liable. Plaintiffs did not plead or factually substantiate essential elements of tort of negligence. Conspiracy claim was deficient with respect to pleading elements of conspiracy. Claim of misfeasance in public office and abuse of authority was struck out as lacking material facts and details. Claim for abuse of process was struck out. Claims with respect to ss. 7 and 15 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were deficient.
Sivak v. Canada (Feb. 28, 2012, F.C., Russell J., File No. T-1700-11) 213 A.C.W.S. (3d) 30 (37 pp.).
Impugned portions of statement of claim little more than bald accusations
Defendants brought motion to strike out portions of amended statement of claim. Paragraphs were struck out without leave to amend. Plaintiffs did not seek leave to amend and there was nothing to suggest plaintiffs could establish scintilla of cause of action in relation to portions of claim that were struck out. Defendants’ motion was not premature. There was no obligation on defendants to demand particulars. Impugned portions of amended statement of claim was little more than bald accusations. Plaintiffs’ accusations against Minister of Foreign Affairs were nothing more than speculative allegations and conclusions unsupported by material facts. Claim did not disclose sufficient material facts to establish and support cause of action against Minister or how Minister could be vicariously liable. Plaintiffs did not plead or factually substantiate essential elements of tort of negligence. Conspiracy claim was deficient with respect to pleading elements of conspiracy. Claim of misfeasance in public office and abuse of authority was struck out as lacking material facts and details. Claim for abuse of process was struck out. Claims with respect to ss. 7 and 15 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were deficient.
Sivak v. Canada (Feb. 28, 2012, F.C., Russell J., File No. T-1700-11) 213 A.C.W.S. (3d) 30 (37 pp.).
