went on to state that “following the expiration of such period,
the Client shall have no claim whatsoever against the Architect”.
Substantial performance of the work on the Weinbaum residence
occurred in 1994.
 By statement of claim issued January 29, 2010, the Weinbaums commenced an action for damages for construction defi-ciencies in their residence. It is alleged that the Weinbaums first
discovered evidence of extensive water damage and mold growth
in August of 2008.
 The Weinbaums did not name either Stan P. Makow or
Makow Architects as defendants, nor did they commence any
other proceeding against Mr. Makow or his company.
 Jack Weinbaum passed away on December 5, 2014.
 By third party claim issued October 13, 2011, David
Weidberg, the construction manager for the project, commenced
third party proceedings against Mr. Makow, Makow Architects
and the City of Toronto. The third party claim seeks indemnity
from the appellants pursuant to the provisions of the Negligence
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.1 on the basis that their actions caused or
contributed to any damages suffered by the plaintiffs. It is
alleged that the appellants failed to carry out their duties to the
plaintiffs. It does not assert any independent or contractual
claim against the appellants.
The Motion for Summary Judgment
 On April 12, 2016, the appellants’ motion for summary
judgment proceeded before the motion judge. The following two
issues were identified by the motion judge to be before the court:
(a) does s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002 supersede the law
that where a party has protected itself from liability by con-
tract from the plaintiff, a defendant cannot compel the pro-
tected party to share the burden of compensating the
injured party; and
(b) if the issue is resolved in favour of the protected party, does
the protection extend to the principle of the protected party
as one of its employees/architects that did the actual work
(and likely an officer and director)?
 In deciding the first issue, the motion judge considered
the law in Giffels but relied on the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Waterloo Region District School Board v. CRD
Construction Ltd. (2010), 103 O.R. (3d) 81,  O.J. No.
5358, 2010 ONCA 838 in finding that the intention of the legislature was to alter the law so that [at para. 24] “a claim for