The appellants (Mastron entities) appealed a motion judge's order that refused to dismiss third and fourth party claims and granted leave nunc pro tunc to Genivar to issue its fourth party claim.
The motion judge held that an order by Hackland J. dated December 10, 2013 was intended to continue the proceedings under the ordinary track rather than under the Construction Lien Act.
The appellants argued the motion judge erred in granting leave nunc pro tunc because the two-year limitation period for commencement of the fourth party claim had expired.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly interpreted Hackland J.'s order as continuing the action on the ordinary track, since the third party claim included claims for breach of contract and negligence in addition to contribution and indemnity, which could only proceed under the ordinary track.
