What is the "plain and obvious" test for striking an application under Rule 9-5(1)(a)?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Gaucher v British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2021 BCSC 289 (CanLII):
The "plain and obvious" test applies to all branches of Rule 9-5(1) but different evidentiary rules apply. Evidence is inadmissible on an application under Rule 9-5(1)(a) to strike on the basis that the pleading discloses no reasonable claim: Rule 9-5(2). Under Rule 9-5(1)(a), the matter proceeds on the basis that the facts pleaded are true, unless they are manifestly incapable of being proven: Young v. Borzoni et al, 2007 BCCA 16 at paras. 30–32.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the test for striking an application to strike? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test in Canada governing the application of Rule 19(24) of the "plain and obvious rule"? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is an application to amend the pleadings before the application to strike the claim is heard? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the "plain and obvious" test for striking a pleading? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the legal principles applicable to an application to strike? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an application be brought to dismiss an application under s. 27(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure Act? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test on an application to strike? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the difference between a party seeking to strike a jury notice at an early date and then postponing the hearing of the application? (British Columbia, Canada)
On an interim support application, can the court get bogged down with the merits of the application? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there an alternative argument that the application of a law of general application to a particular group of Indians in a particular activity is legislation in their Indian-ness? (British Columbia, Canada)
