be arguable, have some elements of a cause of action recognized in law, be a reasonable and
arguable incremental extension of established law and have a reasonable prospect of success.32 In
Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock,33 the majority of the Supreme Court stated:
[A] claim will not survive an application to strike simply because it is novel. It is beneficial, and
indeed critical to the viability of civil justice and public access thereto that claims, including novel
claims, which are doomed to fail be disposed of at an early stage in the proceedings. This is because
such claims present “no legal justification for a protracted and expensive trial”. If a court would not
recognize a novel claim when the facts as pleaded are taken to be true, the claim is plainly doomed
to fail and should be struck. [citation omitted]
 In the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Darmar Farms Inc. v. Syngenta Canada Inc.,34
Justice Zarnett stated:
51. The fact that a claim is novel is not a sufficient reason to strike it. But the fact that a claim is
novel is also not a sufficient reason to allow it to proceed; a novel claim must also be arguable.
There must be a reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed.
 In R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.,35 the Supreme Court of Canada noted that although
the tool of a motion to strike for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action must be used with
considerable care, it is a valuable tool because it promotes judicial efficiency by removing claims
that have no reasonable prospect of success and it promotes correct results by allowing judges to
focus their attention on claims with a reasonable chance of success.
 On a pleadings motion, the court accepts the pleaded allegations of material fact as proven,
unless they are patently ridiculous or incapable of proof.36 Bare allegations and conclusory legal
statements based on assumption or speculation are not material facts; they are incapable of proof
and, therefore, they are not assumed to be true for the purposes of a pleadings motion.37 In making
findings of fact and in applying the law to those facts the court is not obliged to accept as
necessarily true allegations of fact that are rhetorical conclusions or that are inconsistent with the
documents incorporated by reference.38 Documents referred to in a pleading are incorporated by
reference into the pleading, and on a motion to determine whether the plaintiff has pleaded a legally
viable cause of action, the court is entitled to consider any documents specifically referred to and
relied on in a pleading.39
32 Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock, 2020 SCC 19 at para. 19; Darmar Farms Inc. v. Syngenta Canada Inc.,
2019 ONCA 789 at para. 51; Das v. George Weston Ltd., 2017 ONSC 4129 aff’d 2018 ONCA 1053, leave to appeal
refused  S.C.C.A. No. 69.
33 2020 SCC 19 at para. 19.
34 2019 ONCA 789 at para. 51.
35 2011 SCC 42 at paras. 17-25.
36 Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2012 ONSC 4642 at para 12, aff’d aff’d 2013 ONCA 657, leave to appeal ref’d
 S.C.C.A. No. 498; R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 at para. 22; Folland v. Ontario (2003),
64 O.R. (3d) 89 (CA); Nash v. Ontario (1995), 27 O.R. (3d) 1 (CA); Canada v. Operation Dismantle Inc.,  1
S.C.R. 441; A-G. Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada,  2 S.C.R. 735.
37 Price v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 2021 ONSC 1114 at para 51; Das v. George Weston Ltd., 2017 ONSC 4129 at
paras. 14–29, aff’d 2018 ONCA 1053, leave to appeal refused  S.C.C.A. No. 69; Losier v. Mackay, Mackay &
Peters Ltd.,  O.J. No. 3463 at paras. 39–40 (SCJ), aff’d 2010 ONCA 613, leave to appeal refused 
S.C.C.A. No. 438.
38 Das v. George Weston Limited, 2017 ONSC 4129 at paras. 27, 79-80, aff’d 2018 ONCA 1053.
39 Das v. George Weston Limited, 2018 ONCA 1053 at paras. 31, 71, 74 and 78; McCreight v. Canada (Attorney
General), 2013 ONCA 483 at para. 32; Tender Choice Foods Inc. v. Versacold Logistics Canada Inc., 2013 ONSC
80 at para. 31, aff’d 2013 ONCA 474; Martin v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals PLC, 2012 ONSC 2744 at paras. 160-