The plaintiffs were entirely successful on a motion to add a proposed defendant after the expiry of the limitation period.
Both sides sought costs of the motion.
The proposed defendant argued that the plaintiffs' conscious decision not to add him within the limitation period caused the motion.
The court found that the proposed defendant's insurer chose to oppose the motion rather than pleading the limitation period and bringing a summary judgment motion, effectively giving itself two chances to defeat the claim.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, fixed at the exact amount the proposed defendant had claimed as reasonable costs if he had been successful.
