Laidar Holdings Ltd. v. Lindt & Sprungli (Canada) Inc. et al. 2012 BCCA 22
Practice - Parties - Third party or subsequent party procedure - When available - General
The plaintiff (Laidar) leased property to the defendant (Lindt, a chocolatier). The lease provided that the defendant was permitted to use the leased premises for the sale and distribution of chocolate, a use that later became apparent was not permitted under the existing zoning of the property. Because of the zoning difficulties, Lindt never took possession or made payments under the lease. Laidar sued Lindt for arrears of rent. Lindt counterclaimed for breach of lease and tortious misrepresentation. Lindt also filed third party notices against its leasing agents (DTZ and DTZ Barnicke Vancouver Ltd). Laidar filed notices against its property management firm (Warrington) and its leasing agent (Colliers). DTZ sought leave to file a fourth party notice against Lindt’s legal counsel (Blakes) et al.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported  B.C.T.C. Uned. 325, dismissed DTZ’s application to join Blakes as a fourth party. The judge held that no third party or fourth party claim would lie against another when the defence was one the defendant could raise directly against the plaintiff. Any duty owing in law by Blakes to Lindt was to Lindt alone. DTZ appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.