The appellant architect appealed a summary judgment dismissing its third party claims for contribution and indemnity against two sub-trades in a complex construction delay dispute.
The motion judge had dismissed the claims on the basis that there was no firm evidentiary foundation for the sub-trades' liability.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge committed an error in principle by failing to assess the advisability of summary judgment in the context of the litigation as a whole.
Because the sub-trades' responsibility for project delays remained a live issue in the main actions, granting partial summary judgment created an unacceptable risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact.
