Background:

• CNL hired Wood Canada to design and manage a 59 km water line project.
• Wood subcontracted Aldea Engineering Services for the horizontal directional drilling (HDD) design.
• Issues arose during HDD construction (e.g., excessive pulling forces, breaking of tracer wires, "frac-outs").
• EOS (the contractor) claimed the HDD design was not constructible and sought additional payment.
• A third-party engineering review (AE Reports) in 2019 supported EOS' claims, but CNL was only informed in January 2021.
• CNL sued Wood and Aldea in April 2022, alleging faulty HDD design.

Legal Issue:

• Was the lawsuit against Aldea filed after the limitation period expired?
• Aldea argued that CNL had sufficient knowledge of the claim as early as September 2018 (or at latest November 2018) when EOS raised concerns.
• CNL countered that it reasonably relied on Wood/Aldea’s assurances that the design was sound and issues were due to EOS’ incompetence.

Court's Analysis & Ruling:

• The Limitations Act sets a 2-year period from when a party knew or ought to have known about an injury and its cause.
• The judge ruled that CNL reasonably relied on Wood and Aldea’s assurances and did not have full knowledge of the faulty design until January 2021.
• Conclusion: The claim against Aldea was not time-barred and must go to trial. Aldea’s application for summary dismissal was denied.
• No monetary award was granted.