In what circumstances will the Canadian government commence a third party claim?

In Baxter v. Canada (Attorney General), a residential schools’ case, the students sued the Canadian government for negligence because of harm suffered by them at the schools, which were operated for the government by numerous religious organizations. The Canadian government commenced third party claims against the religious organizations. The third parties, some of whom were foreign defendants that had not attorned to the court’s jurisdiction, wished to bring motions to challenge the court’s jurisdiction, and some defendants wished to have the government’s third party claims dismissed against them for failure to disclose a third party claim. Justice Winkler held that the certification motion should proceed first, and he stated at para. 17: 17. In this case, I am not persuaded that there is any compelling reason to hear the third party motions prior to the certification motion. Some of the third parties have argued that the prior determination of the third party motions would simplify the certification motion. This argument, however, is flawed in that it both assumes the participation of the third parties on the certification motion and further assumes that such participation would be permitted in such a manner as to complicate the proceeding. On the other hand, in my view, there is a distinct possibility that the determination of the certification motion, if this motion is heard first, could simplify the third party motions or could render these motions unnecessary.

For present purposes, the point to note is that in Baxter v. Canada (Attorney General), the third party claim was not precluded; rather it was moving forward while being managed in the context of a class proceeding.