R. v. Wilfred Nadeau Inc., (1973) 1 N.R. 67 (FCA)

• Judge: Jackett, C.J., Choquette and Lacroix, JJ.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 29, 1973
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1973), 1 N.R. 67 (FCA)

R. v. Wilfred Nadeau Inc. (1973), 1 N.R. 67 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Wilfred Nadeau Inc.

Indexed As: R. v. Wilfred Nadeau Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Appeal Division

Jackett, C.J., Choquette and Lacroix, JJ.

November 29, 1973.

Summary:

This case arose out of an interlocutory application to strike out a statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action. The trial court dismissed the application. On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the discretionary order of the trial judge was affirmed.

The Federal Court of Appeal stated that it would not interfere with such a discretionary order unless it was obvious without an elaborate argument that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action - see paragraph 3.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Application to strike out a statement of claim on the ground that it failed to disclose a cause of action - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that if a statement of claim discloses an arguable case it cannot be said to disclose no cause of action - See paragraph 4.

Practice - Topic 8804

Appeals - Appeal from a discretionary order of a trial court which dismissed an application to strike out a statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the application and stated that it would not interfere with such a discretionary order unless it was obvious without elaborate argument that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action - See paragraph 3.

Cases Noticed:

Drummond-Jackson v. British Medical Association, [1970] 1 W.W.R. 688, folld. [fn. 4].

Page et al. v. Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited et al., [1972] F.C. 1141, folld. [fn. 5].

W.I. Bishop Ltd. et al. v. James Maclaren Co., [1937] 2 D.L.R. 625 (P.C.), folld. [fn. 7].

Rondel v. Worsley, [1969] 1 A.C. 191, folld. [fn. 9].

Wiseman v. Borneman, [1969] 3 W.L.R. 706, folld. [fn. 9].

Roy v. Prior, [1970] 1 Q.B. 283, folld. [fn. 9].

Schmidt v. Hone Office, [1969] 2 Ch. 149, folld. [fn. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 419 [fn. 1].

Federal Court Rules, rule 474 [fn. 2].

Counsel:

J.C. Ruelland, for the appellant;

Raynold Belanger, for the respondent.