What constitutes a scandalous, vxatious or scandalous pleading?

In George v. Harris, 2000 CarswellOnt 1714, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, at para. 20, Epstein J. gave the following as examples of what constitutes a “scandalous”, “frivolous” or “vexatious” pleading and what ought to be rejected: (a) a document that demonstrates a complete absence of material facts; (b) portions of a pleading that are irrelevant, argumentative or inserted for colour, or that constitute bare allegations; (c) a document that contains only argument and includes unfounded and inflammatory attacks on the integrity of a party, and speculative, unsupported allegations of defamation; (d) 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.