What is the proper approach to Rule 38(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure in a personal guarantee action?

As noted, the appellant relies on Collin Hotels v. Surtees Estate as setting out the proper approach to Rule 38(1). In that case, the plaintiff alleged that its solicitors had been negligent in obtaining certain personal guarantees in connection with a property sale. The defendant proposed to add as additional defendants two men who were to have provided the guarantees and alleged that (i) they in fact did execute the guarantees and (ii) if they did not, they undertook to do so in a manner which was effective and enforceable. Gerein J. was concerned about the prospect of inconsistent dispositions if the claim against the solicitor and a claim against the guarantors were litigated separately. He added the guarantors as defendants saying that this would ensure that all of the evidence would be available to the court so that the court could effectively adjudicate on the issue and that the proposed defendants would be bound by any decision, thereby enabling the court to completely adjudicate on the issue and avoid any multiplicity of actions and attendant incompatibility of decisions.