Van Soest v. CIBC, (1991) 2 B.C.A.C. 40 (CA)
|Judge:||Southin, Cumming and Hinds, JJ.A.|
|Court:||Court of Appeal of British Columbia|
|Case Date:||June 04, 1991|
|Citations:||(1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 40 (CA)|
Van Soest v. CIBC (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 40 (CA);
5 W.A.C. 40
MLB headnote and full text
Gerritt Van Soest, Van Soest Holdings Ltd., Williams Lake Marina & Sporting Supplies Ltd. and Ruko of Canada Limited (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Frank Wood (defendants/respondents)
Indexed As: Van Soest et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Southin, Cumming and Hinds, JJ.A.
June 4, 1991.
The plaintiffs sued a bank and its employee (the defendants). The defendants applied to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim.
The British Columbia Supreme Court struck out the plaintiffs' claims, except for the claim of Ruko of Canada Ltd. The plaintiffs appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of varying the order of the motions judge to make it clear under which rule the pleadings were struck.
Practice - Topic 2200
Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - General principles - The British Columbia Supreme Court Rules, rule 19(24) permitted the court to strike out a pleading which disclosed no reasonable claim or defence, was frivolous or prejudicial, etc. - An application under this rule was to be decided on the assumption that the allegations in the pleadings were true - Pleadings could also be struck under rule 18A, but under that rule there was a trial of the issues arising from the pleadings - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that pleadings could not be struck under both rules at the same time - "Thus, if an action is dismissed under rule 19(24) there is nothing upon which rule 18A can operate" - See paragraph 9.
Practice - Topic 2200
Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - General principles - A motions judge struck out pleadings under both Supreme Court Rules 18A and 19(24) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that if the motions judge determined that the pleadings should be struck under rule 19(24) he ought not to have gone on and dealt with the matter under rule 18A - See paragraph 9.
Practice - Topic 2238
Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial - Four plaintiffs asserted independent causes of action against the defendants - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the pleadings of three of the plaintiffs should be struck under Supreme Court Rule 19(24) where the pleading was embarrassing because it was not clear what the independent causes of action were.
Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 18A [paras. 9, 10, 14, 15]; rule 19(24) [paras. 8, 9, 12, 15].
Supreme Court Rules - see Rules of Court (B.C.).
G.B. Longpre, for the appellants;
S. Smith, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard before Southin, Cumming and Hinds, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered orally by Southin, J.A., on June 4, 1991.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP