Is a condition precedent to the assertion of a claim against a municipality?

The plaintiffs had to satisfy certain statutory conditions before they were entitled to commence action against the municipality. The paragraphs under attack set out that the plaintiffs complied with those statutory conditions; they filed a complaint with the commission, the commission held an inquiry and submitted a report. Although Queen’s Bench Rule 144 provides: “A party need not plead the performance or occurrence of a condition precedent to the assertion of his claim or defence, unless the other party has specifically denied it in his pleading.” and such a pleading is not necessary; in this case, it is not prolix or objectionable; it is clearly relevant to the issues in that the action could not, without the alleged actions being taken, properly be brought before the court and therefore, should not be struck from the pleadings; Schreiner v. Harme (1980), 1980 CanLII 2298 (SK CA), 5 Sask. R. 76. The only question is whether the pleading of the contents of the report, that is, recommendation that damages in an assessed sum be paid and the allegation that payment has not been made, is prejudicial or embarrassing.