Can a pleading that is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious be struck out?

Queen’s Bench Rule 25.11 allows a court to strike a pleading that is “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. Epstein J. dealt with the meaning of “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious” in George v. Harris, [2000] O.J. No. 1762. At para. 20, he stated: The next step is to consider the meaning of “scandalous”, “frivolous” or “vexatious”. There have been a number of descriptions provided in the multitude of authorities decided under this or similar rules. It is clear that a document that demonstrates a complete absence of material facts will be declared to be frivolous and vexatious. Similarly, portions of a pleading that are irrelevant, argumentative or inserted for colour, or that constitute bare allegations should be struck out as scandalous. The same applies to a document that contains only argument and includes unfounded and inflammatory attacks on the integrity of a party, and speculative, unsupported allegations of defamation. In such a case the offending statements will be struck out as being scandalous and vexatious. In addition, documents that are replete with conclusions, expressions of opinion, provide no indication whether information is based on personal knowledge or information and belief, and contain many irrelevant matters, will be rejected in their entirety. (d) Motion by Wellington to Strike Last Sentence of Para. 62 of Statement of Claim in Bellan No. 1