The appellant sought leave to file a reply factum in an appeal, asserting that the respondent's factum introduced new issues, specifically regarding whether a secondary argument was properly raised on appeal and the applicability of the doctrine of merger.
The court found that new issues were indeed raised by the respondent and granted the appellant leave to file a reply factum, while denying the respondent the right to file a sur-reply factum.
Costs for the motion were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.
