What is the "plain and obvious" test for striking a pleading?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Boyd v. Cook, 2016 BCCA 424 (CanLII):
Under Rule 9-5(1)(d), a pleading must not be struck unless it is plain and obvious that the claim is an abuse of the court’s process: Jensen v. Ross, 2014 BCCA 173. If there were a genuine possibility that further evidence or argument could show that the substantive law of Alberta is not the applicable law in this case, the “plain and obvious” test would not be met. The plaintiffs have not, however, raised such a possibility. It is plain and obvious that the substantive law of Alberta applies to the claim.
"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
Does the decision not to permit further amendments before striking pleadings before striking the pleadings is discretionary? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a lack of precision in a pleading sufficient to strike the pleading? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the "plain and obvious" test for striking an application under Rule 9-5(1)(a)? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a pleading that a fiduciary duty exists without more than the pleading of material facts? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the effect of striking a pleading in a civil case? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the relevant factors for striking a pleading? (British Columbia, Canada)
In what circumstances will a judge strike a plaintiff's pleadings? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for striking a Defendant's pleadings? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for striking a pleading under R. 9-5(1)(b)? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for striking out pleadings in a class action? (British Columbia, Canada)
