R. Lee Akazaki

The appellants appealed an order striking portions of their statement of defence and counterclaim which claimed equitable set-off against the respondent personally.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no connection between the struck paragraphs and the allegations of set-off.

However, the Court deleted a paragraph of the order that appeared to prohibit future amendments, clarifying it was merely commentary.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order that struck her claim based on issue estoppel arising from a prior solicitor's assessment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the assessment officer made no finding on the question of negligence, either explicitly or implicitly.

Therefore, issue estoppel did not preclude the appellant from alleging negligence or breach of contract in her subsequent action against the respondent solicitor.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, except for the portion seeking to strike the jury notice, which was remitted to the Superior Court on consent.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of a lease, which arose as a special case under Rule 22 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court judge's interpretation of the parties' intentions based solely on the lease provisions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.