An Ontario judge has struck out a number of the defence claims and counterclaims in a broker-raiding suit between BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. and Wellington West Capital Inc.

The case, being heard in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, involves BMO Nesbitt suing Wellington West and some former Nesbitt brokers who’ve moved to Wellington West. It claims that they were unlawfully induced to move firms and that Nesbitt has been hurt as a result. These claims haven’t been proven in court.

In a preliminary hearing, Nesbitt challenged parts of the statements of defence, claiming that they do not disclose a reasonable defence, nor do they contain a concise statement of material facts relied upon for the defence, and may prejudice or delay the trial.

The court largely agreed with Nesbitt, saying many of the disputed defence allegations are irrelevant. “Nesbitt should not properly be put to the arduous, expensive and unreasonable task of production of all its historical recruitment materials in response to bald allegations,” it ruled. “The recruitment practices of Nesbitt in respect of persons other than the specific recruitment of the defendant employees is relevant in determining the issue of implied terms of the employment contracts but only to the limited extent that the Nesbitt employee defendants may have had had actual and specific knowledge of those practices at the point of assuming employment or gained such specific knowledge during the course of their employment.”

As a result, the court rules that some of these statements are to be struck, with leave to amend the pleadings with more specific facts. “In my view, the above determinations will bring a sharper focus to obtaining relevant evidence on the examinations for discovery and will limit the production of documents by Nesbitt to those that are relevant,” it said.

The court also tossed out Wellington West’s claim that the suit by Nesbitt constitutes an “abuse of process”. The court reports that Wellington West counterclaims that Nesbitt’s suit was commenced, “to discourage or prevent Wellington West and other independent brokerage firms from competing in the Canadian market place.”

But, the court says, “This allegation is vague and the supposed definitive acts or threats pleaded do not notionally constitute acts discouraging or preventing Wellington West and other firms from competing in the Canadian market place.” It struck the counterclaim with leave to amend with a proper pleading that sets forth a reasonable cause of action.