A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Sampare v. 1199 Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCSC 234, highlights the importance of procedural diligence and the potential significant consequences of inaction in litigation matters. The Court’s analysis on applications to add third parties and defendants provides many lessons for litigants to act swiftly and strategically when identifying responsible parties. 

Background 

The case stems from an October 26, 2018, trip-and-fall incident involving the plaintiff, Cheryl Jane Sampare, who alleged serious injuries due to an uneven sidewalk in Vancouver.

Sampare initially pursued legal action against the City of Vancouver, 1199 Holdings Ltd., and XYZ Maintenance Company, alleging that their negligence caused her injuries. However, confusion arose over the exact location of the incident. Initially, in March 2019, counsel for the Plaintiff notified the City that the fall occurred near a 7-Eleven at 1199 West Pender Street. A couple weeks later, they issued a second notice stating that the incident actually took place at 556 Abbott Street, near another 7-Eleven located in International Village Mall. Inquiries from the City as to whether the incident occurred on private property, for which the City would not be liable, were unanswered by the Plaintiff. 

Despite these discrepancies, Sampare filed her Notice of Civil Claim in October 2020, alleging that the fall occurred ‘on the sidewalk in front of and/or at’ a property located at 1199 West Pender Street. The pleadings contained no mention of 7-Eleven. 

Six months later, in April 2021, the Plaintiff discontinued her action against 1199 Holdings Ltd. and advised the City of their intention to amend their Notice of Civil Claim to revise the location of the incident – a crucial step which did not actually occur until an Amended Notice of Civil Claim was filed in November 2023. This amended claim was filed more than 4 years after the Plaintiff’s notice letter with a revised loss location and more than 2.5 years of Plaintiff’s counsel advising the City of their intention to amend their claim. 

Subsequent investigations by the City in 2024, which included an examination for discovery of the Plaintiff and a site survey of the alleged incident site, led to the identity and potential liability of the proposed third parties and the City’s application for leave to file a Third-Party Notice against the lessee/occupier (7-Eleven) and lessor (Henderson) pursuant to Rule 3-5(4) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. 

Upon receipt of the City’s application, the Plaintiff also filed an application under Rule 6-2(7) to add 7-Eleven and Henderson as Defendants to the action. At the time of these applications, there was no imminent trial date. 

Court’s decision: 

While the intention of the parties on both applications was similar (to add potentially responsible parties to the action), factors considered under both Rules 3-5(4) and 6-2(7) led to different conclusions by the Court. The City’s application for leave to file a third-party notice against 7-Eleven and Henderson was granted. The Plaintiff’s application to add 7-Eleven and Henderson as Defendants was denied. 

The Court’s ruling highlights crucial lessons about the enforcement of limitation periods, the obligations of litigants to exercise due diligence, and the risks of delay in litigation. 

Key Takeaways from the Case

1. The importance and strict enforcement of limitation periods: 

• Plaintiffs must identify and sue all responsible parties within the statutory time limit, or they risk losing the right to do so 
• Defendants can seek contribution from third parties even if the plaintiff is time-barred from suing them directly and despite the Plaintiff’s delay

The parties in this case had varying arguments on the calculation and expiration of limitation periods to add the proposed third parties.  The Court outlined three scenarios to consider as the proper approach on an application for leave to file a third-party notice: 

(a) If a limitation period has clearly expired, an application must be dismissed;

(b) If it has not expired, the Court has discretion to grant leave based on other factors; and 

(c) If the parties disagree as to whether the limitation period has expired and the court is unable to determine the issue on the leave application but is otherwise inclined to grant leave based on its discretion under other Rule 3-5(4) factors, the court should direct that the merits of the limitation defence be decided in the third-party proceedings on a more fulsome evidentiary platform. 

In this case, the third party claim against 7-Eleven was permitted subject to 7-Eleven’s right to raise a limitation defence in the third party proceeding. 

2. The parties’ obligations and exercise of due diligence: 

• Courts will not accept arguments of "discoverability" when information was available years earlier but Defendants are entitled to rely on the facts pleaded by the Plaintiff 

The Defendants have an obligation to undertake reasonable diligence to ascertain whether it had a basis for any claims or contribution and indemnity. In this case, the Court found that obligation did not extend to requiring the Defendant (City) to make inquiries of the Plaintiff to ensure that the pleadings correctly identified the site of the incident (despite its prior knowledge of the revised incident location). The City was entitled to rely on the facts as pleaded for the purposes of determining whether it had any basis for advancing claims of contribution and indemnity. The court stated: 

(a) Defendants are entitled to proceed on an assumption that the Plaintiff has correctly identified the site of the incident by the time the pleadings are filed. 

(b) A speculation that a Defendant has a basis for a claim for contribution and indemnity is insufficient basis to file a third party claim and the delay in commencing such a claim until that suspicion is confirmed is excusable. In this case, despite the City’s presumed knowledge of the revised incident location in 2019, the location was not confirmed until the examination for discovery of the Plaintiff and the subsequent site survey nearly four years later. 

3. Explaining delay in litigation: 

When is the Plaintiff’s delay in identifying potential tortfeasors explained or excusable? Defendants/Insurers should be mindful when negotiating settlement where liability and deficient pleadings are a known issue so as to not excuse the Plaintiff from what would otherwise be considered an inordinate delay, without an explanation and inexcusable. The court referred to Amezcua v. Taylor 2010 BCCA 128 wherein the existing Defendants had represented to the Plaintiff that the deficient pleadings were not a bar to settlement. In this case, the Court confirmed no other party “had lulled the Plaintiff to inactivity”. 

In this case, despite being aware of the correct location since at least March 2019—when her legal team took photographs at the site—the Plaintiff failed to amend her claim until November 2023, more than four years later. The delay was not explained, and the Court found that no other party had contributed to this inaction.

4. Delay and resulting prejudice: 

While the Court acknowledged that lost records and unavailable witnesses posed challenges for Henderson and 7-Eleven, it found that these difficulties did not constitute actual prejudice significant enough to defeat the City’s third-party claims—particularly in the absence of an imminent trial date.