728654 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Ontario et al.

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: Moldaver, Sharpe and Gillese, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2005), 202 O.A.C. 4 (CA)
• Date: 28 September 2005
• Subject Matter: PRACTICE

728654 Ont. v. Ont. (2005), 202 O.A.C. 4 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.029

728654 Ontario Inc. o/a Locomotion Tavern, 972101 Ontario Ltd. o/a Cabaret Cannonball, 1210436 Ontario Ltd. o/a Million Dollar Restaurant, Cafe at the Part Inc. and Pak Hon Sit (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Toronto Police Services Board, Regional Municipality of Durham Police Services Board, City of Barrie Police Services Board, Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (defendants/respondents)

(C42946)

Indexed As: 728654 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Ontario et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Moldaver, Sharpe and Gillese, JJ.A.

September 28, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiffs' statement of claim was struck, without leave to amend, on the grounds that the claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious (see [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 404). The plaintiffs appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - The plaintiffs' statement of claim was struck, without leave to amend, on the grounds that the claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious - The plaintiffs appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The pleadings, although not a model of clarity, when read generously were reasonably capable of supporting causes of action for conspiracy to injure and abuse of process - A reasonable cause of action was disclosed - Where the pleadings outlined detailed forms of improper and unlawful conduct engaged in to cause the plaintiffs economic harm, it could not be said that the pleadings were frivolous or vexatious.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - [See Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Cases Noticed:

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al. (1985), 59 N.R. 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

Counsel:

Joseph W. Irving and Neil C. Searles, for the plaintiffs/appellants;

Kevin A. McGivney and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick, for the respondent, Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board;

John P. Zarudny and James Kendik, for the respondents, Her Majesty The Queen and The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario;

Eugene G. Mazzuca, for the respondents, Peel Police Services Board;

Siobhan McClelland, for the respondent, Durham Police Services Board;

Jeff LeRoy, for the respondent, Barrie Police Services Board.

This appeal was heard on September 28, 2005, before Moldaver, Sharpe and Gillese, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On September 28, 2005, the following oral judgment was endorsed on the appeal record by the Court.