Frivolous or vexatious claim

How BC law treats it

Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules allows the court to strike all or part of a pleading that discloses no reasonable claim or defence, is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, may prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial, or is otherwise an abuse of process. On the first ground, no evidence is allowed: the court assumes the pleaded facts are true and asks whether the claim is bound to fail. On the other grounds, evidence may be used. Where the pleading is properly framed but the facts do not support it, a party can apply for summary judgment under Rule 9-6 if there is no genuine issue for trial, or for a summary trial under Rule 9-7. The court can award costs and, for reprehensible conduct in the litigation, special costs, which come closer to the actual legal fees incurred. Claims about expression on matters of public interest, such as a business suing a critic for defamation, can be dismissed early under the Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2019, c 3. Once the defendant shows the claim arises from public interest expression, the plaintiff must show there are grounds to believe the claim has substantial merit and that the defendant has no valid defence, and that the harm is serious enough that the public interest in continuing outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression (Neufeld v Hansman, 2023 SCC 14). A person who repeatedly brings vexatious proceedings can be declared a vexatious litigant under section 18 of the Supreme Court Act, RSBC 1996, c 443, and barred from starting new proceedings without leave.

What it means for your business

Businesses are often targets of weak claims meant to pressure a settlement, and some businesses are tempted to sue critics or competitors to silence them. An early strike application or summary judgment can end a meritless case before the expense of discovery and trial. Equally, a business that files a weak or retaliatory claim risks special costs, a public interest dismissal and reputational harm. Assessing the merits before filing protects against both risks. Example: A former supplier files a claim against a Burnaby distributor based on a contract that the pleadings themselves show was terminated years earlier. The distributor applies under Rule 9-5 to strike the claim as disclosing no reasonable claim and recovers its costs.

Risks and common mistakes

Filing affidavit evidence on an application to strike for no reasonable claim, where evidence is not allowed. Suing an online critic for defamation without considering a Protection of Public Participation Act dismissal and costs exposure. Waiting until after discovery to challenge a claim that was obviously bound to fail on its face. Calling a claim frivolous simply because it is weak, rather than showing it cannot succeed. Overlooking a request for special costs where the other side's conduct was reprehensible.