A sample Notice of Motion

For the better, legal documents must be written by a legal professional(s) who have state licenses to produce a document for a client. Some disciplines, including linguistics discipline, correct syntax, legal disciplines, citations, and correct format, are being preserved at all time as the symbol of the discipline. So highly disciplined documents, both "honesty or defensive", are the hierarchy of the men and women in this discipline who could serve a person in legal need.  This is a personal document i needed to file in the Court of Queen's Bench last week but there is anything for me to hold as something to be personal.    

THE QUEEN’S BENCH

Winnipeg Centre

 

 

BETWEEN:

Fenton Group Investment Ltd. and Nevill Fernando                                

 Plaintiffs,

                                                                                                              

-and-

 

Riverbend Realty Ltd. and The City of Winnipeg                                   

Defendants.

                                                                                                                                          

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

 

 

 

 

Nevill Fernando 

1001-400 Stradbrook Avenue

Winnipeg MB R3L 2P8

Phone and Fax: 204 202 1188

(Name, address, and telephone number of party filing)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE QUEEN’S BENCH

Winnipeg Centre

 

BETWEEN:

 

Fenton Group Investment Ltd. and Nevill Fernando

Plaintiffs,   

-and-

 

Riverbend Realty Ltd. and City of Winnipeg

Defendants.   

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

                                     

 

1.                THE MOTION IS FOR:

I.        An order to set aside the Defendant The City of Winnipeg Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of Claim.

II.      An order to provide Statement of Defence against Plaintiffs Statement of Claim.

III.  An order to engage in closing the pleading and enter into mediation and resolution process in good faith.

IV.      Such or any further relief as counsels may advise and this honorable court may permit.

 

 

2.                THE GROUNDS FOR MOTION ARE:

I.     The Plaintiffs states that all the requests to this court by the Defendant in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of Claim is exiguity, irrelevant or inappropriate, since that concealing only lack of factual coherences and contextual validities with which Defendant having that motivation for filing the Statement of Defense against factual evidences supporting the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiffs as not meaningful in this case seems to be well vested at hand with the Defendant and therefore that Defendant’s inability for conveying an argument to this court in novel propositions against the facts pleaded relevant to be accepted by the cause of an action by way of a Statement of Defense in this is appeared to be the issue with the Defendant for filing the Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of claim for this case. 

II.      In reply to Defendant’s motion for grounds in this by paragraph 2.a., 2.e., 2.f., and 2.g. of the Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of Claim:

                                     a.   Plaintiffs states that Defendant does not have any good ground with reason by which this Motion to Strike Statement of Claim is to be brought forth meaningful, as stated above in paragraph 2.I. of this Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion.

                                  b.   Plaintiffs states that it is only the ‘gospel of commonsense alternative’ that Defendant tries to seek:

“The other permitted attacks on pleadings have a fine 18th century        sound to them – you can claim your opponent’s pleading as:

                                                     i.    “scandalous”;

                                                    ii.    “frivolous”;

                                                   iii.    “embarrassing”; 

                                                   iv.    “vexatious”;

                                                    v.    and “abuse of process”.”

III.   In reply to Defendant’s motion for ground by paragraph 2.b. and 2.d. of the Notice of Motion to Strike the Statement of Claim, Plaintiffs states:

                        a.   The pleadings discloses a cause of an action in common ground for both Defendant parties to be in action to compensate the losses of the Plaintiffs either by paying off the proposed $1,085,000.00 plus exemplary damages to the Plaintiffs as outlined or by paying off the respective sum alternatively by suing one Defendant party the other Defendant party for their respective shares in this claim to be fair;

                                     b.   This case represents an identifiable class in common ground with which the proposed sub category is only temporary for this court to direct whatever or wherever the court may seem appropriate to;    

                                      c.   The Plaintiffs seeking certification for this action has its common ground as the preferable procedure for resolving the claim;

                                 d.  There exist representatives in both parties who can represent the class interests either by seeking advice of the court for direction or by bringing forward a better proposal to the judge;

                                    e.   And as such, the Defendant is only challenging the novel propositions of law.

IV.     In reply to the Defendant statement in paragraph 2.e.i., 2.e.ii., 2.e.iii., and 2.h. of the Defendant’s Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of Claim, Plaintiffs states that the paragraph 1 of the Plaintiffs Statement of Claim is correct and reinstate the paragraph 2.I. of this Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion.

 

3.       THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that will be used at the hearing of this motion:

I.        Statement of Claim filed on September 9, 2020

II.      Defendant The City of Winnipeg Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of Claim

III.     Such further and other evidence as counsel advise and this honorable court may permit 

 

 

October 30, 2020

Nevill Fernando and Fenton Group Investment Ltd.

1001-400 Stradbrook Avenue

Winnipeg, MB  R3L 2P8

Phone and Fax: 204 202 1188

 

(Name, address, and telephone number of party filing)

 

 

 

 

To:    

Director of Legal Services

The City of Winnipeg

3^rd Floor, King Street

Winnipeg, MB  R3B 1J1   

 

         Monica Muller and Duglas Brown

         Counsels for the Defendant The City of Winnipeg

               

 

 

And to:  

MLT AIKINS LLP

Barristers and Solicitors

30^th Floor, 360 Main Street

Winnipeg  MB R3C 4G1

       

         Greg M. Fleetwood and Andrew W. Baumford

         Counsel for the Defendant Royal LePage Riverbend Realty Ltd.