What does a judge consider on a motion to strike for disclosing no reasonable cause of action in Ontario?

On this specific type of motion to strike, a judge asks a narrow legal question: assuming everything pleaded in the claim is true, is it "plain and obvious" that it cannot possibly succeed in law? The judge doesn't weigh evidence, assess credibility, or decide whether the facts alleged are actually true — that's for trial. Instead, the focus is entirely on whether, even taking the plaintiff's version of events at face value, there's no recognized legal basis for the claim, or the law clearly doesn't support the relief being sought. This is a high bar for the defendant bringing the motion; genuine uncertainty about how the law applies to novel facts usually favours letting the claim proceed rather than striking it early.

Because the test is so plaintiff-favourable, courts are cautious about using this motion to shut down claims that raise a genuinely arguable, even if unusual, legal theory. If the claim is struck, the judge will often still allow an opportunity to amend the pleading to fix the identified defect, unless no amendment could realistically cure it. A successful motion of this kind ends the claim, or part of it, without the parties ever getting to discovery or trial, which is exactly why the bar to succeed is set so high.