3 total
The court granted leave to add two engineering firms to a counterclaim but dismissed the motion against a third due to an expired limitation period.
The TNS Defendants brought two motions seeking leave to add three engineering firms (Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd., M.A. Bryan Engineering Inc., and Tacoma Engineers Inc.) as defendants to their counterclaim, alleging negligence in the design and coordination of a septic and plumbing system.
The proposed defendants opposed, arguing the claims were statute-barred due to the expiry of the limitation period.
The court granted leave to add Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. and M.A. Bryan Engineering Inc., allowing them to plead a limitations defence at trial, as there was a factual dispute regarding discoverability.
However, the motion to add Tacoma Engineers Inc. was dismissed, as the court found the material facts against Tacoma were known or ought to have been known by the TNS Defendants by spring 2015, making the claim against Tacoma statute-barred.
Liability waiver signed by an employee is void as contrary to public policy under the WSIA.
The appellant was injured while working as a go-kart race director.
He had signed a waiver releasing the respondents from liability.
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action based on the waiver.
On appeal, the court found that the appellant was an employee covered under Part X of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.
The court held that it is contrary to public policy to allow individuals to contract out of the protections of Part X of the Act.
The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.
Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction as the underlying order was interlocutory, not final.
The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.
The Court of Appeal determined that because a statement of defence had not yet been delivered and the time for delivery had not expired, the order appealed from could only have been interlocutory, not final.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.