HAZELWOOD v SCHLOTTER, 2022 ABKB 821
3.45: Form of third party claim
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
The Defendants had previously applied to file a Third Party Claim more than six months after the Statement of Defence was filed. The Defendants required permission from the Court to file the Third Party Claim outside the timeline set out in Rule 3.45. The Plaintiff applied to refer the matter to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”) review.
The Court rejected the proposed Third Party Claim as a candidate for CPN7 review. Rooke A.C.J. determined that the CPN7 process does not apply to whether the Court should grant the Defendants permission to file the Third Party Claim. The Court noted that CPN7 is a method to conduct a Rule 3.68 process in which alleged facts are presumed to be true and evidence such as Affidavits are excluded. In contrast, the Plaintiff challenged both the merits of the Third Party Claim and whether the Court should allow the Defendants to file it. The Court determined that this was outside the narrow scope of review by CPN7.
The Court instructed the Parties to contact the Clerk of the Court to reschedule the Defendants’ Application to file the Third Party Claim. The Court declined to award Costs.View CanLII Details