Federal Court Rule 369 was not applicable as the causes of action were complex and required oral argument in order to allow the court to understand the positions of parties and nature of claims sought to be struck.

Al Omani v. R.

(2016), 2016 CarswellNat 2706, 2016 CarswellNat 2705, 2016 CF 317, 2016 FC 317, Kevin R. Aalto Prothonotary (F.C.) [Federal]

Federal Court

Practice on interlocutory motions and applications -- Conduct of hearing -- Miscellaneous

Plaintiffs brought action against Crown defendants alleging public misfeasance, abuse and excess of jurisdiction, abuse of process, negligence, and breach of various constitutional obligations -- Defendants brought motion pursuant to R. 369 of Federal Courts Rules for order to strike statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend on basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and was scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious -- Rule 369 provides for motion to be decided on basis of written representations -- Defendants ordered to arrange for half-day hearing of motion -- This particular motion to strike statement of claim was not appropriate candidate for resolution by way of R. 369 procedure -- Assistance of counsel in focused oral argument was required -- Failure to allow oral argument would be prejudicial to plaintiffs -- Complexity of causes of action required assistance of oral advocacy of parties to better understand positions of parties and nature of claims sought to be struck -- It is not axiomatic that just because motion is brought pursuant to R. 369 it will be dealt with in writing -- Complexity of causes of action and analysis of case law as applied to pleaded facts is what should drive whether oral argument is necessary on motion to strike pursuant to R. 369.