Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Timeliness of the claim under Ontario’s basic two-year limitation period, including when the plaintiffs’ cause of action was “discoverable” in light of the religious exemption denials and academic consequences.
• Appropriateness of using a Rule 21 motion to strike to decide limitation issues at the pleadings stage where discoverability raises mixed questions of fact and law and the plaintiffs claim to have relevant evidence.
• Sufficiency of the self-represented plaintiffs’ pleading to disclose any recognizable causes of action (such as breach of contract, negligence, and discrimination) based on the change in program delivery and vaccination requirements.
• Balancing procedural fairness to self-represented litigants against the defendant college’s interest in finality and avoiding meritless litigation, including the court’s discretion to allow amendment.
• Characterization of certain allegations as “scandalous” or “vexatious,” and whether paragraph 15 of the statement of claim improperly contained bare, inflammatory assertions without material supporting facts.
• Scope of the court’s power to strike only offensive portions of a pleading while permitting the underlying action to proceed, and to guide plaintiffs on proper pleading standards.

Background and facts of the dispute

The case arises from an online social work program offered by Northern College of Applied Arts and Technology (“the College”), in which the plaintiffs, a mother and daughter, enrolled as distance learners in September 2020. They undertook what was described as a two-year online social work course delivered remotely. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the College altered the delivery requirements for the program. In August 2021, the plaintiffs were informed that despite being distance learners, they would now be required to attend two in-person weekend workshops on campus during the Fall 2021 semester. Attendance at these workshops became a mandatory component of their program.
At the same time, the College implemented a vaccination requirement for all students attending campus. Students had to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to enter and participate in on-campus activities. The plaintiffs objected to vaccination on religious grounds and applied for a religious exemption from the vaccination policy. They made these exemption requests twice and were denied on both occasions, with the final denial issued on October 29, 2021, just one day before the last scheduled in-person workshop.
Because they were not permitted to attend the in-person session without vaccination and did not obtain an exemption, the plaintiffs did not complete the mandatory in-person component of the course. They were subsequently unsuccessful in the course and placed on academic probation as of December 25, 2021, at the end of their third semester. This academic status triggered further financial consequences. Grants they had previously received to fund their education were converted into repayable loans, which they say caused them significant financial harm.
In response, the plaintiffs commenced a civil action against the College on February 28, 2024, seeking substantial compensation: $1,000,000 in general damages and $50,000 in special damages. They alleged that the College’s conduct in changing the program delivery to require in-person attendance, insisting on vaccination as a condition of attendance, and denying their religious exemption requests led to their academic failure and financial losses. The plaintiffs also advanced broader allegations that they were treated unfairly, harassed and discriminated against by the College administration and teaching staff, including references to mental health and anti-vaccination beliefs as grounds of alleged discriminatory treatment.

Procedural posture and nature of the motion

Before delivering any statement of defence, the College brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim. It advanced three main grounds. First, it argued that the action was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002. In its view, the plaintiffs knew of the key facts giving rise to their claim by October 29, 2021, when their final exemption request was denied, and therefore the two-year limitation period expired before they commenced their claim on February 28, 2024.
Second, the College asserted that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The pleading, as filed, stated a claim for large monetary damages but did not clearly identify recognized causes of action or plead the material facts required to support them. The College pointed to references to alleged breaches of internal policies, failures to follow the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act and unspecified “discrimination” without tying those allegations to a properly articulated legal cause of action.
Third, the College contended that the statement of claim was frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the court’s process. It argued that some of the language was inflammatory, unsupported by specific facts, and improperly cast the College staff in a negative light. On that basis, it asked the court to strike the entire claim without leave to amend.

Limitations defence and discoverability issues

The central legal issue on limitations was whether this was the type of case that could be decided on a motion to strike under Rule 21 at the pleadings stage. The Limitations Act, 2002 sets out a basic two-year period, running from when the claim is “discovered” by the plaintiff. Discoverability is defined in section 5 as the earlier of the actual knowledge of the material facts or when a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s circumstances ought to have known them. Applying this framework typically involves considering when the plaintiffs appreciated that they had suffered a loss, that it was caused by the defendant’s conduct, and that a court proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy.
Here, the College took the position that the limitation clock began to run no later than October 29, 2021, the date when the plaintiffs learned definitively that their religious exemption requests were denied and knew they would not be allowed to attend the final workshop without vaccination. The College argued that, by that date, the plaintiffs were aware of both the alleged wrongful decision and the resulting harm related to their inability to complete the course. On that basis, it claimed the February 28, 2024 filing date was outside the two-year period.
The plaintiffs, acting without counsel, attempted to file various materials through Case Center, including emails with the College, unsworn “affidavit-like” documents and a factum that blended argument and evidence. They maintained that they had additional facts bearing on discoverability and asserted that their claims were not truly discoverable until the spring of 2022, several months after the October 2021 exemption denial. However, on a Rule 21.01(1)(a) or (b) motion, evidence is not admissible, and the court was bound to ignore those materials. The College also challenged the authenticity of some of those documents.
The judge referred to appellate authority cautioning that limitation defences, particularly under the discoverability regime of the 2002 Limitations Act, raise mixed questions of fact and law and are rarely appropriate for determination on a motion to strike, especially before pleadings close. Previous case law has signalled that such motions should only be granted where it is plain and obvious on the face of the statement of claim that no additional facts could change the conclusion that the limitation period has expired. In contrast, this case involved self-represented litigants asserting that they had relevant evidence on when their claim was actually discoverable.
Importantly, the judge emphasized that limitation defences are ordinarily matters to be pleaded in a statement of defence, giving plaintiffs an opportunity to reply and to create a proper factual record. Resolving the limitation issue at this early stage, without that procedural safeguard, would risk unfairness. In light of that concern, and the plaintiffs’ stated position that they could adduce evidence on discoverability, the court found it would be unjust to finally determine limitations on this Rule 21 motion and declined to strike the claim as statute-barred.

Pleading sufficiency, causes of action and amendment

Turning to whether the statement of claim disclosed any reasonable cause of action, the court applied the familiar test: the pleading should only be struck where it is plain and obvious the action cannot succeed, even assuming the pleaded facts can be proven. Courts are directed to read pleadings generously, particularly when drafted by self-represented litigants, and to avoid striking a claim that has even a “germ or scintilla” of a viable cause of action.
The College argued that the plaintiffs had simply pleaded harm and large damages figures, without specifying any recognized cause of action such as breach of contract or negligence, or the specific facts needed to support such claims. The plaintiffs, however, candidly acknowledged that they had “messed up” their original pleading. They told the court that, after receiving some legal advice, they now understood the need to specify and properly plead the legal bases for their claim. In their factum, they set out several proposed causes of action they wished to pursue, including breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress and discrimination.
The judge reviewed the existing statement of claim with this context in mind. Even though it was imperfectly drafted, the core allegations concerned the College’s unilateral decision to modify the mode of delivery for a distance program, impose an in-person component during the pandemic, enforce a vaccination requirement with narrow religious exemptions, and treat the plaintiffs in a way that led to academic probation and the conversion of their grants into loans. When read generously, these factual assertions could support one or more recognized causes of action, particularly in contract or negligence, if properly particularized in an amended pleading.
Because the College had not yet served a statement of defence and had not been noted in default, the rules of civil procedure allowed the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim without leave. Nonetheless, the court made clear that even if leave were required, it would be granted. The judge was not persuaded that allowing an amendment would cause any irreparable prejudice to the College or undermine finality, especially given that costs remain an available remedy to address any procedural disadvantage. The court therefore refused to strike the claim in its entirety and explicitly confirmed that the plaintiffs could and should file an amended statement of claim setting out clear causes of action and the material facts underpinning them.

Allegations of frivolous, vexatious and scandalous pleading

The College also sought to characterize the entire claim as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The authorities draw a line between pleadings that contain some triable material facts, even if inexpertly framed, and those that consist solely of argument, speculation, or unsupported attacks on the character or integrity of the opposing party. Bare allegations made only “for colour” or to vilify a party, without factual foundation, are considered scandalous and can be struck.
The judge carefully separated the plaintiffs’ central factual narrative about the change in program delivery and the vaccination policy from certain more inflammatory passages. The court concluded that the action itself was not frivolous or vexatious. The plaintiffs were clearly seeking a remedy for the academic and financial situation in which they found themselves after the shift in course requirements and the vaccination mandate. They had pleaded material facts that, if proven, could conceivably ground a recognized tort or contract claim. There was no indication that the lawsuit was brought for a collateral or abusive purpose.
However, the court did identify problems with one specific paragraph of the statement of claim—paragraph 15. That paragraph alleged that the plaintiffs suffered “unfair treatment, harassment, emotional and psychological abuse” from the College administration and teaching faculty, and asserted that this treatment was due to previous discrimination regarding mental health and their refusal to be vaccinated. The judge found that this passage was a bare, inflammatory allegation directed at College staff, without sufficient particularity or supporting material facts. It was therefore deemed scandalous and vexatious and ordered struck from the pleading.
By contrast, the College’s request to strike other paragraphs as scandalous and vexatious was rejected. While those sections were not pleaded with precision, they contained factual assertions relevant to the possible new causes of action that the plaintiffs proposed to advance. The court declined to excise them at this stage, reinforcing its overall approach of trimming only plainly improper content while preserving the core dispute for determination on the merits.

Guidance on proper pleading and next steps

To assist the self-represented plaintiffs in redrafting, the judge drew on established principles governing pleadings. The court reiterated that the primary purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice of the case to be met, define the issues for both the parties and the court, and create a permanent record of the dispute. Causes of action must be clearly discernible from the pleaded facts and supported by material facts, not by evidence or argument. Parties should avoid including irrelevant, immaterial or argumentative assertions, as well as allegations inserted solely to cast the other side in a bad light. In particular, allegations of negligence, fraud, misrepresentation or conspiracy must be pleaded with specificity rather than in broad, conclusory terms.
In line with these principles, the court gave the plaintiffs 30 days from the release of the decision to file an amended statement of claim. That amended pleading is expected to identify the precise causes of action (such as breach of contract, negligence, misrepresentation or discrimination) and to set out, in a concise and factual manner, the events and circumstances that give rise to those causes of action. It must also properly describe the nature of the damages allegedly suffered, including the academic and financial consequences they attribute to the College’s conduct.

Outcome and status of monetary relief

In the result, the College’s motion to strike succeeded only in a limited respect. The court refused to strike the statement of claim in its entirety and declined to rule, at this early stage, that the plaintiffs’ action was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002. It also rejected the contention that the entire claim was frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The only relief granted to the College was the striking of paragraph 15 as scandalous and vexatious, while the remainder of the claim survives and may be refined through amendment.
On this motion, the plaintiffs can be regarded as the more successful party because their lawsuit remains active and they have been expressly authorized to amend their statement of claim within 30 days to correct the pleading defects. No damages or other monetary remedies have been awarded at this stage; the court has not yet determined liability or entitlement to any part of the $1,050,000 the plaintiffs have claimed. As for costs of the motion, the judge has left the issue open, directing the parties to exchange written submissions if they cannot agree. Accordingly, there is presently no fixed or ascertainable total amount of monetary award, damages or costs ordered in favour of any party.