On a motion to quash, the court held that orders granting leave to amend a statement of defence and adding a party defendant for limited purposes were interlocutory, not final.
The motion judge's discussion of res judicata and the Limitations Act, 2002 did not amount to a final determination of those issues on the merits, but only a preliminary assessment that the proposed defence was tenable under rule 26.01.
The court emphasized that appeals lie from orders, not reasons, and that the nature of the underlying motion governs the characterization of the order.
Because the litigation continued and no substantive right was finally determined, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.
The appeals were quashed and leave to appeal the costs award was refused.
