The Limits of Rule 12.02 Motions to Strike in Ontario Small Claims Court

Introduction

Rule 12.02 of the Small Claims Court Rules permits a court to strike out or amend a document that discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, or that may delay or make it difficult to have a fair trial, or that is inflammatory, a waste of time, a nuisance, or an abuse of the court's process. It is the Small Claims Court analogue to Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, adapted for a forum designed to be accessible, expeditious, and proportionate.

But Rule 12.02 has limits — and when motion judges exceed those limits, appellate courts will intervene. The recent decision in Singh v. Air Canada, 2026 ONSC 2983 provides a detailed illustration of how a Rule 12.02 motion can go wrong, and what the proper approach should be.

The Threshold for Striking Under Rule 12.02

The test for striking pleadings is well established. In Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a claim should only be struck if it is "plain and obvious" that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action. The court must assume that the facts pleaded are true and ask whether there is any chance the claim could succeed. If there is, it must be allowed to proceed.

This is a deliberately high threshold. As the Court of Appeal explained in PMC York Properties v. Siudak, 2022 ONCA 635, pleadings should be read generously, drafting deficiencies should be accommodated, and cases should be determined on their merits based on the evidence presented at trial — not disposed of on a preliminary motion.

Applying the Test in Small Claims Court

Small Claims Court is designed to be an accessible forum for self-represented litigants and parties with modest claims. Pleadings in Small Claims Court are typically less formal than those in Superior Court — and the rules reflect this. The expectation is that procedural fairness, not technical precision, should guide how cases are managed.

This makes Rule 12.02 motions a particularly blunt instrument in the Small Claims Court context. Self-represented litigants may not draft their claims with the same precision as a lawyer, and the court should be slow to punish drafting deficiencies by striking claims entirely. The Divisional Court in Singh made this point clearly: the motion judge should have considered whether the deficiencies in the pleadings could be addressed through amendment before concluding that the claim should be struck.

The Duty to Consider Amendments

One of the most significant aspects of Singh v. Air Canada is the Divisional Court's emphasis on the duty to consider amendments before striking. The appellant had requested leave to amend her statement of claim to narrow its focus to damages directly relating to flight delays and luggage delays. The motion judge refused to consider this request until after deciding that the pleadings should be struck — and then denied the amendment on the basis that there was "no claim by the Plaintiff to be considered for amendment or otherwise."

The Divisional Court found this approach was an error. Citing the Court of Appeal's decision in PMC York Properties, the court emphasized that leave to amend should be denied "only in the clearest of cases." This principle applies with equal force in Small Claims Court under Rule 12.02 as it does in Superior Court under Rule 21.01.

Limits on Findings of Fact

A Rule 12.02 motion is not a trial. It is not an opportunity for the court to weigh evidence, assess credibility, or make findings about a party's motive. In Singh, the motion judge made findings about the appellant's motive in pursuing the claim — concluding that the assignment constituted champerty and maintenance, and that the claim was an abuse of process. The Divisional Court held that these findings were not appropriate on a motion to strike. The motion was not the appropriate forum for making findings about the appellant's motive, and the question of whether the claim would ultimately succeed was a matter for trial.

This is consistent with the broader principle that motions to strike are concerned with the pleadings, not the evidence. The question is whether the claim, as pleaded and assuming the facts to be true, discloses a reasonable cause of action — not whether the claim will ultimately succeed on the merits.

When Rule 12.02 Is Appropriate

None of this is to say that Rule 12.02 motions are never appropriate. There are genuine cases where a claim is so clearly without merit that allowing it to proceed would be a waste of the court's resources and unfair to the defendant. Claims that are entirely duplicative of previous proceedings, claims against parties who have no connection to the dispute, or claims based on legal theories that have been definitively rejected by binding authority may all be appropriate candidates for striking.

But the motion must be approached with caution. The court must read the pleadings generously, assume the facts are true, consider whether amendments could cure any deficiency, and refrain from making findings of fact that are properly left to trial. When these principles are followed, Rule 12.02 serves its intended purpose as a gatekeeper against truly hopeless claims. When they are not, the result is the kind of error that the Divisional Court corrected in Singh.

The Costs Consequences of an Improper Strike

The costs award in Singh is also instructive. The Divisional Court ordered Air Canada to pay $7,000 in costs — a significant amount in the context of a Small Claims Court matter. In arriving at this figure, the court specifically noted Air Canada's "aggressive and unforgiving stance" on costs at the Small Claims Court level, where it had sought $7,655 in costs against the appellant. The presumptive costs award under Rule 15.07 of the Small Claims Court Rules is $100. The lesson for respondents is clear: if you bring or support a Rule 12.02 motion that is ultimately found to be improper, the costs consequences on appeal can be substantial.

Key Principles for Practitioners

For practitioners navigating Rule 12.02 motions — whether bringing them or defending against them — Singh v. Air Canada reinforces several key principles. A motion to strike requires a "plain and obvious" standard — the claim must have no reasonable prospect of success. The court must read pleadings generously and accommodate drafting deficiencies, particularly those of self-represented litigants. Leave to amend must be considered before the court decides to strike. Findings of fact about motive, credibility, or the ultimate merits of the claim are not appropriate on a Rule 12.02 motion. And respondents who pursue aggressive striking motions in Small Claims Court risk substantial costs consequences if they are reversed on appeal.