The appellants purchased a house and later discovered structural problems.
They sued the vendors and others, and later sought to add the designers as defendants.
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against the designers as statute-barred, finding the appellants ought to have known of the dangerous defects earlier.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment, holding that the motion judge erred in law by ignoring uncontested sworn evidence from the appellants' former counsel regarding when the dangerous nature of the defects was discovered.
