Digest: Case v Rotelick and Associates, 2018 SKQB 242

Date:September 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 242

Docket Number: QB18236 , QBG 2109/12 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-09-18


  • Elson


  • Civil Procedure � Parties � Application to Add Parties
  • Courts and Judges � Discretion � Nunc Pro Tunc
  • Statutes � Interpretation � Contributory Negligence Act, Section 7
  • Statutes � Interpretation � Limitations Act, Section 14, Section 20

Digest: The defendants applied for an order granting leave to issue a third-party claim against the proposed third-party defendants claiming contribution and indemnity. The defendants and proposed third-party defendants are chartered professional accountants. The plaintiffs claimed against the defendants and the defendants argued that the proposed third-party defendants also provided advice and assistance to the plaintiffs. The third-party defendants argued that the application was contrary to the Contributory Negligence Act and relevant provisions of the Limitations Act. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were responsible for unanticipated tax costs resulting from a Canada Revenue Agency reassessment. They claimed a breach of contract and negligence misstatements. In their statement of defence, the defendants assert that they recommended the sale of shares should have been directly to the other two holding companies and that they generally recommended against the use of butterfly reorganization, which was used. They also indicated that the plaintiffs sought a second opinion from the proposed third-party defendants, who recommended the butterfly reorganization. The defendants then agreed to deal directly with the third-party defendants in planning the butterfly reorganization. The defendants argued that if the plaintiffs suffered loss, it was the result of the third-party defendants breaching contract and/or negligent misrepresentations. There was a tolling agreement between the defendants and the proposed third-party defendants that stipulated during the agreement, the defendants shall not commence a third-party claim against them. During the �tolling period�, any time-based defences would be tolled. The tolling period ran from March 30, 2015 to April 20, 2017. The defendants indicated that their prior counsel miscalculated the tolling period. The issues were whether: 1) the defendants missed the limitation under s. 14 of The Limitations Act; and 2) a claim could be made against the proposed third party for contribution or...

To continue reading