The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on Highway 401 and sued the owner and the operator of the vehicle that struck him for damages. The defendants issued a third party claim against the Province of Ontario. Nearly five years after Province delivered its defence, the defendants sought to add the contractor hired by the Province to perform maintenance on the roadway. Justice Muszynski granted leave for issuance of the third party claim. The Province had not pleaded in its statement of defence that it relied on a contractor for maintenance of the subject roadway. Justice Muszynski found that the defendants could not have known about the contractor before they received documentation from the province in 2019 (three years after commencement of the third party reasoclaim against the Province).
The plaintiff sued London Transit Commission (LTC) for environmental contamination. LTC was served with the statement of claim on May 22, 2013. LTC issued a third party claim against Eaton (the former owner of the land) on March 16, 2016. Eaton brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the claim was barred by the limitation period. LTC argued that the claim was not discoverable. Justice Mitchell granted summary judgment, finding that LTC did not act with the due diligence required of a reasonable person with its abilities and in its circumstances, and therefore did not rebut the presumption under s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002.
The Defendant gas station sought to add a third party snow plow operator to the action. The Plaintiff had asked the Defendant at discoveries in 2015 to advise within 60 days if it intended to issue a third party claim. The Plaintiff contacted the Defendant a further eight times and received no response. The Plaintiff set the matter down for trial in March 2016. At the pre-trial in December 2016, the Defendant advised of its intention to issue a third party claim and the Plaintiff objected. Justice Thomas refused to grant the Defendant leave to issue a third party claim on the basis that there had been ample opportunity for the Defendant to do so and that the Plaintiff would be prejudiced by the further adjournment that would occur if a third party was brought into the action.