What is the effect of a master's order striking out a statement of defence?

Here, in the proceedings antecedent to the master’s order, counsel for the appellant (defendant) assured the master, who made it clear that he was of the view that the statement of defence should be struck, that he did not intend to stand on the impugned pleading and that if he were granted an adjournment of the application to strike it out he would attempt to negotiate a settlement of the claim and, failing that, would file a more responsive amended statement of defence. The master granted the requested adjournment. However, when the application came before the master again and counsel for the appellant (defendant) had not delivered on his assurance, counsel took the position that he had a right to rely on the statement of defence as it stood. These events are canvassed in the reasons for judgment of the chambers judge: see 2002 BCSC 1610 ¶¶ 5-12. Counsel’s intransigent position was asserted in the face of the master’s earlier decision in Borsato v. Basra (2000), 43 C.P.C. (4th) 96, 2000 BCSC 28 which, although we have overruled it, was at that time an authoritative decision contrary to his position and made his failure in the first instance virtually inevitable.