Summary: This case involves an appeal by Gerald Sternberg against Cresford Capital Corporation. Sternberg seeks to add a reply factum in response to new issues raised by Cresford in its responding factum, specifically concerning the appropriateness of raising certain arguments on appeal and the application of the doctrine of merger.

Key Points:

• Motion for Reply Factum: Sternberg requested permission to file a reply factum, arguing that Cresford introduced new issues not anticipated in the initial rounds of submissions.
• Court's Ruling: The Court of Appeal, per Justice Benotto, granted Sternberg's motion, recognizing that the introduction of new issues justified a reply for thorough preparation and focused hearing. The court, however, denied Cresford the right to file a sur-reply factum.
• Doctrine of Merger: Cresford’s argument involved the doctrine of merger, which Sternberg contended was unexpectedly introduced, thus necessitating further clarification through his reply factum.
• Procedural Considerations: The decision highlights procedural fairness in allowing additional submissions when new issues arise unexpectedly, ensuring both parties have ample opportunity to address all pertinent arguments fully.

Outcome: Sternberg was permitted to file his reply factum to address new issues raised by Cresford. Costs for the motion were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal. This decision underscores the court's commitment to a comprehensive review of all issues before making a determination. No amount for costs/award provided in the document.