Can a claim be struck against Her Majesty The Queen on the grounds that, as now pleaded, it discloses no cause of action and may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action?

The claim is struck against Her Majesty The Queen on the ground that, as now pleaded, it discloses no cause of action and it may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action. I so conclude for the following reasons: 1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 appear to plead an agreement, but the relevant terms of that agreement are not alleged, nor is breach of those terms alleged with sufficient material facts so as to give rise to a cause of action. It is not clear which agreement paragraph 7 relates to. It is not sufficient for a claim to contain bare assertions without facts on which to base the assertions. See: Vojic v. Canada, [1987] 2 C.T.C. 203 (F.C.A.). 2. To the extent that paragraph 6 appears to allege the creation of a further agreement, the terms of the alleged agreement giving rise to the claim are not set out as required, nor is the alleged breach properly pleaded in paragraph 7. 3. Paragraphs 8 and 10 as pleaded create no cause of action and are not related to any other allegation or to the plaintiff. 4. Paragraph 9, which asserts a fiduciary duty is incomprehensible as drafted. The material facts alleged to give rise to the existence of the duty and the breach of the alleged duty are not properly pleaded. 5. Paragraph 13 does not properly plead a cause of action under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 6. After hearing the plaintiff's submissions, the relief claimed does not appear to correspond to her grievances.