The appellants, a solicitor and his law firm, appealed a summary judgment finding them liable for professional negligence in a commercial real estate transaction.
The respondent purchasers had relied on the solicitor's advice that a minor title issue regarding a city-owned laneway would be covered by title insurance.
When the respondents later attempted to sell the property, they discovered the city required $106,000 for the laneway and their title insurance claim was denied.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the limitation period did not begin until the title insurance claim was denied, and that expert evidence was not required to establish the standard of care given the clear failure to warn.
The Court also upheld the motion judge's decision to grant summary judgment to the respondents despite the lack of a cross-motion, citing the principle of proportionality.
