In Yi Teng Investment Inc. v. Keltic (Brighouse) Development Ltd., Ken McEwan, Q.C., Emily Kirkpatrick, and Samantha Chang, acting on behalf of the developer Keltic, succeeded in its application to strike the plaintiff’s amended notice of civil claim and successfully opposed the plaintiff’s first application to amend its pleadings.
Keltic brought an application to strike the plaintiff’s amended notice of civil claim on the basis that the claim is grounded in a contract for a portion of unsubdivided property, contrary to s. 73 of the Land Title Act and therefore illegal and void ab initio; the plaintiff brought a cross-application to amend its pleadings. Partway through the hearing of the application, and following the decision of the Court of Appeal (indexed as 2019 BCCA 357) to discharge the plaintiff’s certificate of pending litigation on the basis that the plaintiff’s claim is on its face prohibited by s. 73 of the Land Title Act, the plaintiff then filed an amended notice of application to amend its pleadings, in which the proposed amendments abandoned its claims to an interest in land.
The court agreed with Keltic’s submissions that the plaintiff’s amended notice of civil claim should be struck as it pleaded a prohibited claim that the plaintiff was effectively abandoning, and stayed the plaintiff’s claim. The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s original application to amend its pleadings, but granted the plaintiff leave to seek to amend its notice of civil claim relying on its amended application materials, with leave to Keltic to file further application materials in response. See Reasons for Judgment here.