75 Q. Have you kept that home inspection? Do know what you did with
that home inspection?
A. No, sir. No, sir. I do not have it.
76 Q. Was the home inspector someone local to Whitby?
A. I think so but I do not recall.
. . . . .
79 Q. In terms of the home inspection you had performed do you remember the procedure that was followed? Did you meet with the home
A. No, sir.
80 Q. You did not meet with the home inspector?
No. I got a written report.
 Counsel for the Murphy defendants and the Amerispec
defendants proceeded to examine Wai-Ping but they did not ask
any questions about the 1995 home inspection or the identity of
the home inspector.
 In September 2015, while cleaning out his mother’s home
in anticipation of a sale of the mother’s property, Wai-Ping discovered a copy of the 1995 home inspection report. It had been
prepared by S.P. Hart & Associates Ltd on February 22, 1995 (the
“Hart inspection report”). Counsel for Wai-Ping delivered a copy
of the Hart inspection report to counsel for the Murphy defendants and the Amerispec defendants on or about October 20, 2015.
 On November 19, 2015, the Murphy defendants issued
a statement of claim against S.P. Hart & Associates Ltd. and
related entities (the “Hart defendants”) following the issuance of
a notice of action dated October 23, 2015. On November 30, 2015,
the Amerispec defendants issued a statement of claim against the
Hart defendants following issuance of a notice of action dated
November 2, 2015.2
 On May 2, 2017, the Hart defendants brought the present
motion seeking to dismiss the actions against them by the Murphy defendants and the Amerispec defendants (the “claims for
contribution”) on the basis that they were commenced outside of
the relevant limitation period in the Act. The Hart defendants
make two arguments in support of their motion for dismissal.
2 I note that Way-Ping issued a third party claim against the Hart defendants on November 12, 2015, but that this claim was subsequently dismissed
on consent and is not at issue on this motion.