Does the good faith immunity clause and absence of a duty of care apply?

The defendants concede that if the claim is in the tort of abuse of public office, the arguments based on the good faith immunity clause and the absence of a duty of care are not applicable. But their counsel argues that: a) Rule 173 applications to strike are to be determined on the pleadings only. b) In Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321 D.L.R. (4th) 301, it was held, in a claim based on the tort of abuse of public office, that the bare assertion of conclusions such as acting “wrongfully” or in “bad faith” is not sufficient to maintain a claim and that facts must be pled that provide the foundation from which conclusions of acting wrongfully or in bad faith can be drawn. c) The pleadings in this action do not particularize material facts that would permit a finding of abuse of public office to be drawn. Thus they say this claim should be struck for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.