On a Rule 21 motion, the third parties sought to strike a third party claim arising from successive motor vehicle accidents, arguing the claim was barred because the plaintiff's direct claim against them was statute-barred.
The court held it was not plain and obvious that the third party claim must fail, because the pleadings left open the possibility that the plaintiff's damages from the two accidents might be indivisible.
Relying on the jurisprudence addressing overlapping injuries and third party contribution and indemnity claims, the court held that whether the damages could be separated was a matter for the trial judge.
The court also agreed that s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002 governed the third party claim rather than the limitation period for a direct action by the plaintiff.
The motion to dismiss the third party claim was therefore dismissed with costs.
