Law360 Canada ( July 24, 2026, 9:45 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Oldcastle from an order setting aside its third‑party notice against Division 8 on the basis that the claim for contribution and indemnity was statute‑barred. Oldcastle, a defendant in an underlying construction defect action, sought contribution and indemnity from Division 8, a subcontractor. Oldcastle had filed applications for leave to issue a third‑party notice within the limitation period but did not file the third‑party notice itself until after the expiry of the limitation period. Division 8 brought an application to strike the notice as time‑barred. Oldcastle argued that filing the application for leave to issue a third‑party notice constituted commencing a court proceeding under s. 22(2) of the Limitation Act, thereby stopping the limitation period. Division 8 contended that only the filing of the third‑party notice itself commenced the proceeding. The judge concluded that Oldcastle was required to commence a court proceeding within the two-year limitation period. The issue was whether, for a claim for contribution or indemnity, a court proceeding was commenced by filing an application for leave or only by filing the third‑party notice. Oldcastle also argued that the judge’s interpretation was inconsistent with case law and created uncertainty and unfairness, while Division 8 maintained that the judge correctly applied a contextual and purposive interpretation aligned with the statutory scheme....