In the case of Kisac v. Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. dated September 14, 2023, the defendant, Defence Construction (1951) Limited ("DCC"), had filed a motion to strike plaintiff Sule Kisac's Amended Statement of Claim, asserting it lacked a reasonable cause of action and was scandalous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court's processes. DCC had also requested that Kisac not be allowed to amend her claim and, alternatively, if allowed, be required to pay outstanding costs or post security. The court had granted DCC's motion to strike based on Rules of Civil Procedure 21.01(1)(b), 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11(b) and (c). Kisac had been given permission to amend her claim, but she had to post $10,000 in security before doing so. Sule Kisac had had a history of legal proceedings with DCC, starting with her placement on leave in November 2021 for violating the company's COVID-19 Vaccination Policy. She had initiated an action against Derrick Cheung, DCC's President and CEO, in December 2021, alleging various wrongdoings related to the policy. This action had been dismissed, and she had been advised to seek legal counsel. DCC had subsequently terminated Kisac's employment in July 2022. Ultimately. the court had found Kisac's amended claim non-compliant with Rule 25.06(1) and lacking material facts, leading to its striking.