The appellant solicitor appealed the dismissal of his third party claim for contribution against real estate agents in a negligence action arising from a commercial property purchase involving false zoning representations.
The court held, by majority, that issue estoppel did not apply because the prior mortgage proceeding did not determine the agents' independent liability to the purchaser.
However, the majority concluded that the third party claim was an abuse of process because it effectively attempted to relitigate the same misrepresentation issue that could have been advanced in the earlier proceeding.
The dissent would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the agents' duty of care had never previously been litigated.
