The defendant brought a motion seeking to consolidate two actions relating to fuel oil contamination or alternatively to obtain leave to issue a third party claim against additional defendants.
The court found that the plaintiffs’ claim for damages arising from fuel oil migrating from the defendant’s property did not share common issues of fact or law with the defendant’s separate action against service providers relating to his home heating system.
The proposed third party claim would duplicate claims already pursued in the separate action and would significantly delay and complicate the plaintiffs’ straightforward damages claim.
The court held that the prejudice to the plaintiffs from delay and increased complexity outweighed any benefit.
The motion was dismissed and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
