Canada Case Law

Valley Traffic Systems Inc. v. Hanna

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Because the trial judge found and the Court of Appeal upheld that the three defendants engaged in a common design, hid payments behind a sham profit‑sharing agreement, and were equally complicit in a coordinated, malicious defamation campaign, there is no basis to differentiate their degrees of fault; accordingly Hanna must contribute and indemnify one third of the amounts paid (equal apportionment).

Source excerpt

• Common design
• Apportionment of liability
• Default judgment
• Assessment of damages
• Indemnity and contribution
• Aggravated and punitive damages

Read case analysis

Grant Thornton LLP v. Interior Equities Corp.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of an application to strike a third party notice, holding it was not plain and obvious that the accountant’s conduct could only be raised as a defence or that agency existed.

• Third party notice
• Agency relationship
• Duty of care
• S.4 contribution and indemnity
• Rule 9-5 strike application
• Plain and obvious test

Read case analysis

Professional Diving Contractors Limited v. Hynes

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The appeal was allowed: the judge did not err in applying the arguable case standard to dismiss Pro-Dive’s negligence claim against Technip, but erred by confining the contribution analysis to the statute and by improperly basing refusal to join Technip on delay and mitigation; leave to issue the Third Party Notice was granted to permit a common law contribution claim to proceed and the judge’s costs order was set aside.

Source excerpt

• Third party joinder
• Arguable case/plain and obvious test
• Inducement of breach of contract (tort)
• Common law contribution
• Mitigation of damages
• Duty of care

Read case analysis

DGBK Architects v. CWMM Consulting Engineers Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Appeal dismissed from an order allowing SRC Engineering Consultants Ltd. to file a third-party notice; the court held the claim was not plainly bound to fail and costs were in the cause.

• Third-party notice
• Strike application
• Limitation act
• Negligence act s.4-2(b)
• Standard of review
• Third-party-notice

Read case analysis

Beasy Nicoll Engineering Limited v. GEM Health Care Group Limited

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The new Limitation of Actions Act applied; the limitation period for any claim against Beasy Nicoll expired at the latest in 2004 (15 years from the latest act/omission in 1989); Justice Moir erred in applying the former Act and its s.3 discretion. Section 22(a) cannot be used to add Beasy Nicoll because (1) Beasy Nicoll was a third party in a separate proceeding and not a party to the original proceeding between GEM and Amherst, and (2) adding Beasy Nicoll would change the capacity in which it is sued from third party to defendant; therefore GEM could not amend to add Beasy Nicoll and the ap…

Source excerpt

• Interpretation of limitation of actions act
• Transitional provisions
• Discoverability
• Third party proceedings vs. party defendants
• Amendment of pleadings
• Section 22 and section 15 application

Read case analysis

Maio v. Kapp Contracting Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Pierringer Agreement and the dismissal order limited the respondents' ability to recover damages attributable to the settling defendant (the City) but did not extinguish or preclude Mer Mechanical Inc.'s ability to pursue contribution from third- or fourth-party defendants; therefore the motion judge correctly denied the appellant's challenge and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Pierringer agreement
• Third-party and fourth-party claims
• Several liability
• Contribution
• Effect of settlements on third-party liability

Read case analysis

Sharma v. Mohammad

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Appeal from an order allowing a third party notice was dismissed. The court held it was bound by prior authority on when s. 16(a) of the Limitation Act starts time running.

• Limitation periods
• Third party notice
• Discoverability
• Indivisible injury
• Stare decisis
• Limitation-periods

Read case analysis

Sears v. Top O’ the Mountain Apartments Limited

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Section 15 of the Limitation of Actions Act applies to contribution and indemnity claims in both contract and tort; a defendant’s claim for contribution/indemnity is discoverable when the defendant is served with the plaintiff’s claim (May 12, 2016 here) for s.8(1)(a) purposes; the defendants’ third party claim filed May 1, 2020 was after the two-year basic limitation expired May 12, 2018, but the defendants’ claim is "in respect of personal injury" under s.12(2) and, on a s.12(3)/(5) hardship analysis (considering notice given to Duel Feb 9, 2016, absence of specific prejudice, conduct and p…

Source excerpt

• Limitation periods
• Discoverability
• Disallowance of limitation defence under s.12 laa
• Third party claims
• Statutory interpretation
• Summary judgment

Read case analysis

Bentall Kennedy (Canada) Limited Partnership v. Davidson Bros. Mechanical Contractors Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court granted Davidson Bros. leave to file a third party notice against Trotter in a water-pipe loss case, while leaving any limitation issue undecided.

• Third party notice
• Leave to add third party
• Limitation act s.16
• Negligence act contribution
• Third-party-notice
• Contribution-and-indemnity

Read case analysis

Dhanda v. Gill

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that s. 22(2) of the Limitation Act bars a third party contribution or indemnity claim after limitation expiry and dismissed Surrey’s application.

• Limitation periods
• Section 22 limitation act
• Third party notice
• Rule 3-5(4)
• Discoverability
• Limitation-periods

Read case analysis