JUDGMENT

UPON MOTION in writing dated September 17, 2025, submitted by counsel for the Defendant, Attorney General of Canada (Defendant), under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules [FCR], SOR/98‑106 for:

• (a)An order that the Statement of Claim be struck out in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 221 of the FCR, without leave to amend;

• (b)Costs in a set amount of $500.00;

• (c)Alternatively, an order granting the Defendant a 30-day extension of time from the date of the Decision on this Motion to file a statement of defence; and

• (d)Such further and other relief as the Honourable Court may deem appropriate in the circumstances;

AND UPON there being no record of any representations being submitted by the Plaintiff within the time provided, or at all, although duly served with the Defendant’s motion record;

AND UPON reading the motion record filed on behalf of the Defendant, including the written representations dated July 25, 2025;

[1] The issues to be decided on this motion are as follows:

• (a)Should the Statement of Claim be struck for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Defendant?

• (b)If the Statement of Claim is struck, should the Plaintiff be granted leave to file an amended Statement of Claim?

[2] Having reviewed the motion record filed by the Defendant, and for the reasons that follow, I conclude that the Statement of Claim should be struck out without leave to amend. In my view, the controlling issue is the failure of the Plaintiff to plead material facts giving rise to a reasonable cause of action.

1. The Statement of Claim Fails to Disclose a Reasonable Cause of Action

[3] The Court may strike a claim under Rule 221(1)(a) of the FCR if it discloses no reasonable cause of action. The stringent test for striking out a claim on this ground is whether, assuming that the facts pleaded to be true, it is “plain and obvious” that the pleaded claims disclose no reasonable cause of action. Another way of putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success: Hunt v Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 at para 36 [Hunt]; R. v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 at para 17, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45.

[4] On a motion to strike a pleading, all the facts pleaded, unless patently ridiculous or incapable of proof, must be accepted as proved. This rule does not apply, however, to allegations based on assumptions and speculation. The Statement of Claim is to be read “as generously as possible and to accommodate any inadequacies in the form of the allegations which are merely the result of drafting deficiencies”: Hunt at paras 33 and 34; Operation Dismantle v The Queen (1985), 18 DLR (4th) 481 (SCC) at paras 14 and 27.

[5] In order for a statement of claim to disclose a cause of action, it must: (1) allege facts that are capable of giving rise to a cause of action; (2) disclose the nature of the action which is to be founded on those facts; and (3) indicate the relief sought, which must be of a type that the action could produce and that the Court has jurisdiction to grant: Oleynik v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 896 at para 5.

[6] The specific requirement to plead material facts is embodied in Rule 174 of the FCR, which provides that a Statement of Claim “shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies.”

[7] What constitutes a material fact is determined considering the cause of action and the damages sought to be recovered. A plaintiff must plead, in summary form but with sufficient detail, the constituent elements of each cause of action or legal ground raised. The pleading must tell the defendant who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability. The Court and opposing parties cannot be left to speculate as to how the facts might be variously arranged to support various causes of action: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 at paras 16 and 19 [Mancuso].

[8] Rule 221(2) provides that no evidence shall be heard on a motion to strike a pleading under Rule 221(1)(a). The effect of Rule 221(2) is that I must limit my examination to the allegations pled in the Statement of Claim in determining whether it discloses a reasonable cause of action. Although the Defendant made submissions with reference to materials referred to in the Statement of Claim, those documents are not before the Court and therefore cannot be considered by the Court. Accordingly, the arguments at paragraphs 23-26 of the Defendant’s written representations are deemed struck.

[9] In his Statement of Claim, filed August 20, 2025, the self‑represented Plaintiff seeks damages of $25,500,000.00 from over 50 named Defendants. The named Defendants include both individuals and corporate or institutional Defendants. The Statement of Claim also seeks special, punitive and aggravated damages.

[10] Further, the Statement of Claim seeks a declaration that the Defendants actions and omissions violated the Plaintiff’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, (UK) 1982 c 11 and other statutes.

[11] The Statement of Claim pleads that the Defendants’ conduct has caused the Plaintiff damages including loss of income, reputational harm, emotional distress, exile and legal expense. Significantly, the Plaintiff pleads no material facts to support the alleged harms and damages. Instead, he pleads that the facts in support of his claim are set out in his affidavit sworn on August 11, 2025, and also in a Notice of Constitutional Question dated August 6, 2025. He pleads that these documents are “incorporated by reference as part of [his] statement of claim.”

[12] However, I note that by Directions of this Court issued on September 2, 2025, by Associate Judge Steele and September 26, 2025, by Associate Judge Ring, the Notice of Constitutional Question and various affidavits were rejected for filing by reason of non‑compliance with the FCR. In consequence, there are no material facts pleaded. Even if the affidavits and Notice of Constitutional Question had been filed, the attempt to plead material facts by “incorporation by reference” fails to meet the obligations of Rule 174, that is, to plead a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies.

[13] The failure to comply with the rule is fatal to the Plaintiff’s claim. I agree with the Defendant that the Statement of Claim lacks a reasonable prospect of success. As this Court has noted, pleading a claim involves a “modicum of story-telling”: Al Omani v Canada, 2017 FC 786 at para 17. A party must be able to describe the events or circumstances that are alleged to have occurred and which have harmed the Plaintiff. Sufficient detail is required so that the defendant and the Court can understand the essential nature of the claim and the cause of action being asserted.

[14] From my review of the Statement of Claim, I am unable to discern the nature of the claim. Instead of a coherent story which frames a cause of action and grounds a claim for damages, the Plaintiff’s claim merely catalogues a series of alleged unlawful acts including abuse of process, obstruction of justice, defamation and libel and slander, negligence, and misfeasance in public office to name but a few.

[15] While I am mindful that self-represented litigants are given some leeway in drafting pleadings, that does not exempt a party from the requirements of a proper pleading: Fitzpatrick v Codiac Regional RCMP Force, District 12, 2019 FC 1040 at para 18.

[16] In the result, I must conclude that the Statement of Claim fails to plead, with sufficient particularity, the constituent elements of a cause of action. Bereft of any facts, the Statement of Claim fails to disclose to the Defendants the who, when, where, how and what gives rise to their liability: Mancuso at para 19.

[17] Having come to the conclusion that the Statement of Claim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action, it is unnecessary for me to address whether it should also be struck as an abuse of process or as being frivolous and vexatious, and I decline to do so.

2. The Statement of Claim should be Struck Out Without Leave to Amend

[18] After determining that the Statement of Claim will be struck, I am required by Rule 221 to consider whether to permit the Plaintiff to file an amended Statement of Claim. The test for granting leave to amend is whether the defects in the claim can potentially be cured by amendment: Simon v Canada, 2011 FCA 6 at paras 8 and 14. Here, the Plaintiff failed to respond to this motion and did not suggest any amendments that might cure the radical defects.

III. Costs

[19] The Defendant seeks costs of $500.00. Generally, I would be inclined to grant costs to the successful party. However, I note that the Defendant failed to include a copy of the Statement of Claim and a copy of Associate Judge Steele’s Direction with his motion record. Rule 364(1)(f) provides that a moving party must include in its motion record “any other filed materials that is necessary for the purposes of the motion.” It goes without saying that the Statement of Claim constitutes filed material that is necessary for the purposes of the motion. Further, the Defendant relied upon Associate Judge Steel’s Direction without placing a copy in the motion record. Rather than dismissing the motion on that basis and in keeping with the overarching principle in Rule 3—to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive outcome of every proceeding—I exercised my discretion to permit the motion to be determined on the deficient record. I am not, however, inclined to reward the Defendant with an Order of costs in these circumstances.

4. Conclusion

[20] For these reasons, I conclude that the Statement of Claim shall be struck in its entirety, without leave to amend.

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The Defendant’s motion to strike is granted.

2. The Statement of Claim is struck out, without leave to amend.

3. The action is dismissed.

4. The whole without costs.