Is para. 3 of the Affidavits sufficient to describe the nature of the cause of action?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Co-op Gen. Ins. Co. v. Billett, 1988 CanLII 2877 (BC CA):
I think the language of para. 3 of these affidavits, although sparse, is sufficient to describe the nature of the cause of action. In describing the moneys as those of the plaintiffs, and in specifying that they were had and received by the defendants, these affidavits are much fuller than the language in Aim v. Kost, supra, and are sufficiently full not to require the reader to guess at the cause of action.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Can a plaintiff in a personal injury action commence an action against a defendant in the same action against the same defendant? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is misrepresentation sufficient to be an inducing cause for a plaintiff's actions? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for adding plaintiffs to a proposed class action where the named and proposed representative plaintiff has no legitimate cause of action? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of pleading in a personal injury action where there are several causes of action against multiple parties? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can knowledge of a cause of cause be used as grounds for cause of dismissal? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a breach of the BC Building Code sufficient to be a cause of action? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a new action be brought against the same parties in the same cause of action? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is amplification of an affidavit sufficient to compel a judge to approve the affidavit? (British Columbia, Canada)
What causes of action have been struck out of a class action for breach of section 61 of the Competition Act? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test to determine whether a third party action should be heard separately or within the main action? (British Columbia, Canada)
