The contractor responsible for snow and ice maintenance brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that both the plaintiffs’ slip-and-fall claim and the co-defendants’ cross‑claim were barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The court held that a genuine issue requiring trial existed regarding discoverability of the contractor by the plaintiffs, given evidence that counsel made inquiries with the insurer and was told no other maintenance contractor existed.
However, the cross‑claim for contribution and indemnity by the condominium owner and manager was statute‑barred because they had actual knowledge of the contractor’s involvement and were served with the statement of claim more than two years before asserting the claim.
Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the cross‑claim but denied regarding the plaintiffs’ main action.
