Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 FEBRUARY 2013

The Second Opinion: The BCCA Clarifies The Doctrine Of Res Judicata

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

A discussion on the the recent ruling in Erschbamer v. Wallster, 2013 BCCA 76, which not only provides a clear and succinct overview of the doctrine of res judicata, but also clarifies several under-developed aspects of the law.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Opinions Group of McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Regrettably, Canadian courts have not always done an adequate job of distinguishing between the two discrete branches of res judicata — i.e., (i) issue estoppel and (ii) cause of action estoppel – nor in aligning those two forms of res judicata with the related but separate doctrine of (iii) abuse of process.

Helpfully, the recent ruling in Erschbamer v. Wallster, 2013 BCCA 76, not only provides a clear and succinct overview of the three doctrines, but also clarifies several under-developed aspects of the law.

The Court of Appeal commenced with a useful summary of the essential nature of each of the three doctrines (emphasis added):

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from