Addition of plaintiff falls within limitation period, Saskatchewan courts say

Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal has denied leave to appeal to a group of insurers that argued the addition of a plaintiff to a case fell outside of a two-year limitation period.
The Appeal Court agreed with the decision of the chambers judge to reject the insurers’ arguments, although the appellate court believed the chambers judge was in error to comment on the Limitations Act.
The Appeal Court ruled that the plaintiff could be added simply on the basis of the court’s rules of civil procedure.
The insurers, lead by Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, insured Stomp Pork Farm Ltd.
Farm Credit Canada (FCC) advanced various loans to Stomp, requiring Stomp to place insurance on its property and list it as a first-loss payee under those insurance policies. FCC also required that a standard mortgage clause be added to the policy to protect FCC.
A hog barn under construction was totally destroyed by fire on Dec. 12, 2005. Stomp filed a proof of loss on April 17, 2006 and the insurers denied coverage.
Stomp issued a statement of claim against the group of insurers on Mar. 9, 2007, claiming indemnification under the terms of the policy for the losses and damages it suffered as a result of the fire.
FCC filed a proof of loss dated June 20, 2006 related to its interest in the insurance and the policy.
In the intervening period between January 2008 and the present day, Stomp was placed under creditor protection. It continues to advise that it will, at least for the time being, proceed with the prosecution of its claim against the insurers.
After Stomp was placed under creditor protection in 2008, FCC applied to be added as a plaintiff to Stomp’s action. The FCC requested amendments to the statement of claim.
The insurers asserted that FCC’s claim was statute-barred and therefore it could not commence an action under the policy.
The chambers judge said the plaintiff could be added on the basis of Rule 39 of the court’s rules of civil procedure. “All that is required [to add FCC as a plaintiff] is [that] there be an interest in the subject matter of the action, some indication that a party may be adversely affected by the judgement and a common question of law or fact with the question in issue in the existing action. I find that these criteria are met.”
Court of Appeal Justice Hunter wrote: “I find there was no reviewable error which would allow this court to interfere with the exercise of the chambers judge’s discretion.”