What is the "plain and obvious" test for striking a pleading?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Boyd v. Cook, 2016 BCCA 424 (CanLII):

Under Rule 9-5(1)(d), a pleading must not be struck unless it is plain and obvious that the claim is an abuse of the court’s process: Jensen v. Ross, 2014 BCCA 173. If there were a genuine possibility that further evidence or argument could show that the substantive law of Alberta is not the applicable law in this case, the “plain and obvious” test would not be met. The plaintiffs have not, however, raised such a possibility. It is plain and obvious that the substantive law of Alberta applies to the claim.

Other Questions


What is the "plain and obvious" test for striking an application under Rule 9-5(1)(a)? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for striking a pleading under R. 9-5(1)(b)? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for striking out a defence pleading for ultra vires? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for striking part of a pleading in a tort action? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for striking a pleading under sub-rule 9-5(1)(a)? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the case law in favour of striking a reply pleading? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is it plain and obvious that a statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the effect of striking a pleading in a civil case? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the relevant factors for striking a pleading? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is Rule 9‑5(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure striking out a pleading? (British Columbia, Canada)

There are no other similar questions at this time.