FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 511 times | Saved to 440 briefcases
Dawson v Rexcraft. Storage & Warehouse Inc. (1998), 164 DLR (4th) 257, 20 RPR (3d) 545 (Ont CA)


21.01(b) and 20.01(1), (3), and (4) are devices to challenge the merits of a Ps claim or the Ds defence before trial
Essence of claim under 21.01(b)
**Ds motion is that the wrong in SoC is not recognized as a violation of Ps legal rights
**No evidence is considered when making a decision on this


Does the SoC state a legally sufficient claim?


Only strike out if “plain and obvious” claim cannot succeed


**In some cases a SoC will be vulnerable to dismissal bc P has sought relief for facts that are not proscribed under the law
**Offers no assistance in weeding out cases where a substantively adequate claim, or defence, has been pleaded, but cannot be proved – this is the function of r.20 (motion for summary judgment)

**Permits motion judge to consult the pleadings, affidavits, cross-examination, discovery, admissions and other evidence to determine where there is a genuine factual dispute between the parties

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.