Court of Appeal

                                            NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL

                          Citation: Lienaux v. 2301072 Nova Scotia Ltd., 2005 NSCA 97

                                                                                                                              Date:   20050621

                                                                                                                         Docket:  CA 214597

                                                                                                                              Registry:  Halifax

Between:

                                       Charles D. Lienaux and Karen L Turner-Lienaux

                                                                                                                                           Appellants

                                                                             v.

                                  2301072 Nova Scotia Limited, Marven C. Block, Q.C.,

                                                       The Toronto Dominion Bank

                                                                                                                                       Respondents

                                                                             v.

                                             Wesley G. Campbell and Grant MacNutt

                                                                                                                                        Third Parties

Judge:             The Honourable Justice Roscoe

Appeal Heard:           May 16, 2005

Subject:          res judicata, requirements for issue estoppel, privies, finality

Summary:      The respondents applied in Supreme Court Chambers to strike out proposed amendments to the appellants’ defences and counterclaims in a foreclosure action. The Chambers judge struck out 107 of the proposed amendments on the basis that they were res judicata.

Issues: Was there a reasonable apprehension of bias? Did the Chambers judge err in the application of the law?

Result:            Appeal allowed in part. Eight of the proposed amendments were not res judicata because the decision where those issues had been dealt with previously, on an interlocutory application for production of documents, was not a final decision. All other grounds of appeal were dismissed.

There was no reasonable apprehension of bias nor denial of procedural fairness as a result of the Chambers judge reserving decision for more than six months. All elements of issue estoppel were met in respect to all the other proposed amendments. There was no authority to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada for review of this court’s previous decision since that Court had already denied leave to appeal.

Saunders, JA.:           In separate concurring reasons, found that the appellants' assertions imputing bias, conspiracy and corruption, and their attacks on the judiciary and members of the Bar were scandalous, and not supported by a shred of evidence. Their submissions were preposterous, an affront to the administration of justice in this province, and deserved denunciation that was swift, direct and unambiguous.