Determination that action brought within limitation period made for purpose of amending statement of claim only

Ontario civil | Civil Practice and Procedure | Limitation of actions | Actions involving municipal corporations

In 2004, plaintiff municipality retained consultant to prepare proposal for rehabilitation of bridge. Consultant proposed three alternatives but recommended third, overlaying entire deck with hydrophobic concrete, eliminating need for waterproofing membrane, which municipality accepted. Municipality retained defendant contractor to carry out work with product provided by defendant supplier in 2005. Concrete deficiencies were discovered in 2006 and repaired by contractor in 2007. When deficiencies were discovered again in 2008, contractor refused to undertake further repairs claiming deficiencies were result of consultant specifying inappropriate product. In 2010, municipality brought action for damages against contractor and supplier. Supplier issued third party claims against product manufacturers. Consultant continued to assure municipality that deficiencies were result of poor workmanship by contractor. In 2014, contractor and municipality both obtained expert reports suggesting that product recommended by consultant was not as impermeable to moisture as advertised and should not have been used. Municipality successfully brought motion to amend statement of claim to add consultant as defendant. Consultant appealed. Appeal quashed. Trial judge’s determination that action was brought within limitation period was made for purposes of motion only. Motion judge was satisfied that, for purposes of determining whether to add consultant as a party, limitation period had not expired. Order under appeal was interlocutory. This court had no jurisdiction to hear appeal. Consultant may, if so advised, seek leave to appeal in Divisional Court, or it may raise limitations argument at trial.

Prescott & Russell (United Counties) v. David S. Laflamme Construction Inc. (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 8543, 2018 ONCA 495, Doherty J.A., H.S. LaForme J.A., and Himel J. (ad hoc) (Ont. C.A.).

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

OBA Innovator-in-Residence Colin Lachance aims to help lawyers integrate AI into their practice

Ontario Superior Court rejects mining company’s breach of agreement and confidentiality claims

Ontario Superior Court orders plaintiff to pay substantial costs despite injury claims

Labour and employment lawyer Muneeza Sheikh opens her practice as part of 'building a brand'

Ontario Superior Court awards damages in domestic assault case due to defendant's default

Ontario Privacy Commissioner calls for stronger access and privacy protections

Most Read Articles

Labour and employment lawyer Muneeza Sheikh opens her practice as part of 'building a brand'

Ontario Superior Court awards damages in domestic assault case due to defendant's default

Ont. Superior Court upholds Human Rights Tribunal's denial of reconsideration in discrimination case

Ontario Privacy Commissioner calls for stronger access and privacy protections