How have the courts dealt with motions under Rule 34 and Rule 19(24)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure in a personal injury action?

In McIlvenna v. I.C.B.C., the defendant brought a motion under Rule 34 for a decision on a point of law and a motion under Rule 19(24)(a) for an order striking out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable claim. The chambers judge in the court below found that he could not decide the point of law without a trial and dismissed the application to strike all but one of the claims made. The issue on the application for directions was whether the defendant required “leave to appeal the chamber judge’s refusal to strike the entire statement of claim and to decide the point of law” (at para. 4). The arguments of the parties are set out in the reasons of Huddart J.A. at paragraph 5: The applicant submits the issues it raised before the chambers judge would form a substantive part of a final trial, and further, that a successful application would have permitted it to appeal without leave, because the orders would have finally disposed of the litigation. The respondent disagrees, maintaining that only a totally successful application would dispose finally of the litigation and that no matter raised in the applications to the chambers judge would dispose finally of a substantive issue in the action.