What is the test for striking part of a plaintiff’s statement of claim?

At paras. 6 and 7 Pritchard J. states: 6 The arguments advanced by both counsel and the difficult and conflicting national and international case law they rely upon makes it abundantly clear that the infant plaintiff’s claim is a complex, difficult and novel one that treads in substantially unchartered areas of tort law. but as stated by Madam Justice Wilson in Hunt v. T & N plc, 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385 (S.C.C.) at 409: The fact that a pleading reveals “an arguable, difficult or important point of law” cannot justify striking out part of the statement of claim. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that where a statement of claim reveals a difficult and important point of law, it may well be critical that the action be allowed to proceed. Only in this way can we be sure that the common law in general, and the law of torts in particular, will continue to evolve to meet the legal challenges that arise in our modern industrial society. 7 The summary procedure of Rule 173 is only appropriate where it is plain and obvious that the plaintiff has no reasonable cause of action. This is not such a case. The court is therefore not prepared to deprive this plaintiff of the right to pursue his claim. The defendant’s application is dismissed with costs of the application in the cause.