The Defendants agreed to underpin and stabilize the foundation of an apartment building before selling it to the Plaintiff. A number of years later, the Plaintiff discovered that the work done by the Defendants was ineffective, causing movement in the foundation; the Plaintiffs sued. The Defendants applied for Summary Dismissal of the Claim pursuant to Rule 7.3 on the grounds that the Action was barred under the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12, and that there was no privity of contract as between the Plaintiff and Defendants. Master Breitkreuz held that the limitation period was suspended while the deficiency of the Defendant’s work was fraudulently concealed. Master Breitkreuz held that the limitations Defence and the privity of contract Defence were not genuinely arguable Defences. The Application for Summary Dismissal was therefore dismissed.