Law360 Canada ( May 8, 2026, 9:39 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Pre‑Con Builders Ltd. (Pre‑Con) from a decision granting summary judgment in favour of the third parties, Neil Cooper Architect Inc. and Neil Cooper (collectively, Cooper), and dismissing Pre‑Con’s third‑party claim. The underlying litigation concerned latent building envelope deficiencies discovered after a fire in a condominium complex constructed by Pre‑Con, which retained Cooper to provide architectural services. In 2022, the plaintiffs sought an extension of time to sue and named both Pre‑Con and Cooper. The plaintiffs later settled with Cooper, releasing them and abandoning their application, then obtained an extension order and commenced an action only against Pre‑Con. Pre‑Con issued a third‑party claim against Cooper for contribution and indemnity. Cooper sought summary judgment, submitting Pre‑Con’s claim was barred because the plaintiffs had released them, Cooper bore no liability to the plaintiffs, and in any event, the limitation period, estoppel, and abuse of process defeated the claim. The judge did not decide those arguments, but he held as a common sense proposition that a defendant who could have defended the main action by pursuing a limitation defence should not be permitted to seek contribution from a third party. Pre‑Con argued on appeal that the judge made material factual errors, such as incorrectly finding it raised and abandoned a limitation defence and consented to the plaintiffs’ abandonment of the application and further erred by failing to recognize that the Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act granted a statutory right to bring a third‑party claim within a separate limitation period that had not expired. Cooper maintained that the judge’s reliance on inherent jurisdiction and fairness principles was justified, that Pre‑Con’s silence caused unfairness, and that procedural equity supported dismissing the third‑party claim....