McNally Construction Inc. v. Hamilton Port Authority

McNally Construction Inc. v. Hamilton Port Authority

The motion judge committed a palpable and overriding error by treating qualified, non‑evidentiary statements of plaintiff’s counsel at the summary judgment hearing as conclusive admissions that the plaintiff had no claim against Golder; because that finding was flawed the dismissal of the third and fourth party claims could not stand and must be set aside, and the limitation issue should be left for trial.

Citation
2014 ONCA 651
Parties
Plaintiff: McNally Construction Inc.; Defendant (appellant): The Hamilton Port Authority; Third Party (respondent): Golder Associates Ltd.; Fourth Party: Mar-Land Engineering Limited
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion
Outcome
Appeal allowed; motion judge’s dismissal of the third and fourth party claims set aside and matter remitted for further proceedings; limitation defence left for trial.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Contribution and Indemnity, Admissions by Counsel, Limitation Clause, Negligence, Third‑party Claims
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Tort Construction Law Limitations Summary Judgment Contribution and Indemnity Admissions by Counsel +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McNally Construction Inc.

Plaintiff

The Hamilton Port Authority

Defendant (appellant)

Golder Associates Ltd.

Third Party (respondent)

Mar-Land Engineering Limited

Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge properly treated statements by plaintiff’s counsel at the summary judgment hearing as binding admissions that eliminated the plaintiff’s claim against the third party
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had a viable cause of action against Golder such that the Port Authority’s third‑party claim for contribution and indemnity could proceed
  3. 3 Whether the one‑year contractual limitation clause barred the third‑party claim

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge committed a palpable and overriding error by treating qualified, non‑evidentiary statements of plaintiff’s counsel at the summary judgment hearing as conclusive admissions that the plaintiff had no claim against Golder; because that finding was flawed the dismissal of the third and fourth party claims could not stand and must be set aside, and the limitation issue should be left for trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; motion judge’s dismissal of the third and fourth party claims set aside and matter remitted for further proceedings; limitation defence left for trial.

Orders

  • Set aside the motion judge’s dismissal of the third and fourth party claims
  • Costs awarded to the appellant fixed at $10,000 plus disbursements and HST